: \ 



V 



J 



THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR 



Edited by the 

REV. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D. 

Editor of " The Expositor," etc. 



DR. CHARLES H. H. WRIGHT'S 

INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT. 



NEW YORK 
THOMAS WHITTAKER 

2 and 3, BIBLE HOUSE 
1900 



AN 

INTRODUCTION TO THE 
OLD TESTAMENT 



BY THE REV. 

CHARLES H. H. WRIGHT, D.D., Ph.D. 

BAMPTON LECTURER (1878) IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, 

DONNELLAN LECTURER (1880-81) UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN, 

EXAMINER IN HEBREW AND NEW TESTAMENT GREEK IN THE 

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 



FOURTH EDITION 



I • i > > > 

> y > > i 1 > J ) ) 1 

1 j -> > 



NEW YORK 

THOMAS WHITTAKER 

2 and 3, BIBLE HOUSE 

1900 









Printed by Hazell, Watson &■ Vinty, Ld„ London arid Aylesbury, England. 



PREFACE TO THE FOURTH 
EDITION 

A NEW edition of this "Introduction" having 
-*"*- been called for, the publishers have requested 
me to make such additions to the Appendix attached 
to the Second Edition in 1891 as might bring the 
Bibliography down to the present time. Personally 
I would have preferred to have rewritten the 
whole work, so as to notice the critical theories put 
forth since its first publication. Those theories 
have not, however, in my opinion substantially 
affected any of the conclusions arrived at in the 
body of the work. The more important additions 
to Old Testament literature will be found mentioned 
in the Bibliographical Appendix, in which the 
Appendix to the Second Edition has been incor- 
porated. 

The enormous advance in recent years in almost 
every department of Old Testament literature can be 
seen from a glance at that Appendix, incomplete 
though it necessarily must be. The progress made 



vi PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION. 

in English works on the subject in the last ten years 
exceeds that of any former decade. That rapid 
advance has been attended with certain drawbacks. 
On matters of Biblical criticism the pendulum has 
unduly swung from the standpoint of a narrow 
traditionalism towards that of an excessive tolera- 
tion. The most destructive critics are now welcomed 
as fellow-workers in the path of progress, while 
there is a disposition to regard all conservative critics 
more or less as obstructives. 

There is, moreover, a marked tendency, even 
among those who profess belief in Scripture as a 
whole, to accept all that is merely stated to be 
the latest results of modern criticism. The spirit 
of submission to authority is as rampant as ever. 
Some years ago it was dangerous to question "the 
authority of the Church," which was supposed to 
have placed barriers in the way of free enquiry ; 
now it is dangerous to a scholar's reputation in 
England or elsewhere to call in question "the 
unanimous interpretation " of the critics. Theologians 
who but twenty or thirty years ago would have been 
found in the ranks of those striving to harmonise 
Scripture and Science, are quite ready, without having 
made any thorough examination of the matter, to 
express belief in the latest dicta of critics, however 
opposed those dicta may be to the truthfulness of 
the books of the Old Testament. Some, filled with 



PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION, vii 

the new-born spirit of liberality, are willing to 
admit the narratives of the Old Testament to be a 
confused mass of legend and fable, of which the less 
said the better. Histories and prophecies, to which 
Christ and the writers of the New Testament 
appealed as of decisive authority, are now put aside 
as no longer reliable ; while the question has already 
been debated in Church journals whether our children 
ought to be taught at all the histories cf the Old 
Testament. 

Such a surrender of the sacred books of the Old 
Testament is not justified by the actual facts of Old 
Testament criticism. It is unscientific on the one 
hand, and fatal to truth on the other. The cowardly 
spirit exhibited in times past by those who were leaders 
in our Universities, which led them to stifle enquiry 
rather than answer objections, combined with the 
apathy exhibited by the Evangelical party in the 
Churches as to the necessity of a higher theological 
education, have at the present crisis rendered the 
Churches comparatively destitute of scholars properly 
trained in Biblical science and able to uphold the 
truth as taught by Christ and His Apostles. Some 
dream that "the authority of the Church " can be 
relied on as a sufficient support for the theological 
dogmas taught in the Creeds, and have persuaded 
themselves that no great danger will accrue to faith 
by the Old Testament being lowered to the rank of 



viii PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITIOX. 

Homer and Herodotus. This is a fatal mistake. 
It underrates the effect of such a surrender, both 
upon the progress of religion at home and of Chris- 
tianity in the mission field. Church authority, 
except so far as founded upon Holy Scripture, can 
be easily demolished by the sceptical professor in the 
class-room of the university, and by the advocates 
of infidelity in the streets, whether at home or 
abroad. 

It is certain that the books of the Old Testament 
have come down to us substantially in the same 
shape as they existed in the days of our Lord. No 
u canons or decrees " of the Jewish Church are, indeed, 
in existence ; but it is beyond doubt that those books 
were accepted as of Divine authority both by Christ 
and His Apostles. Yet the texts of the Books of 
Samuel, of Kings, of Chronicles, and of Jeremiah, 
presented practically the same difficulties in that 
age as they do now. The same lack of harmony in 
minor details characterised some of the historical 
narratives even of the earlier books of the Old 
Testament. The difficulties as to the real drift of 
the Books of Ecclesiastes and of the Song of Songs 
puzzled enquirers in those days as well as in our 
own. Such subjects were actively debated in the 
Jewish schools prior to the final overthrow of the 
Jews in the days of Hadrian (a.d. 134). 

Facts like these can be, more or less satisfactorily, 



PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION, ix 

proved by external evidence. The case is, however, 
different with respect to a number of the conclusions 
asserted to be arrived at by modern criticism. The 
evidence on which critics base their conclusions is to 
a large extent subjective. They cannot appeal to 
newly discovered inscriptions or writings in support 
of their claim to have discovered the various documents 
out of which the Pentateuch and other books were 
originally compounded. The old Hebrew literature 
was probably re-edited, more or less correctly, after 
the return of the Jews from the captivity in Babylon. 
The texts of the Old Testament books were no doubt 
seriously affected by that national disaster. All 
honest attempts to amend the Hebrew text where 
it exhibits the signs of corruption must be wel- 
comed. But we look with the gravest suspicion 
upon attempts to tamper with the books from a 
naturalistic standpoint, whether with the object 
of lowering the teachings of the Prophets to the 
level of the ancient Greeks, or of destroying Messianic 
interpretations of passages admitted alike both by 
Jew and Christian in the time of our Lord. 

Theologians may have unduly pressed the argu- 
ment that Moses was the writer of the Pentateuch on 
the ground that Christ invariably referred to Moses as 
its author. They seem to have forgotten how impos- 
sible it would have been to have employed any other 
phraseology. We still speak of Homer, whatever 



x PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION. 

theory may be held on the question of the authorship 
of the Homeric poems. Christ, however, appealed 
to the Books of Moses as God-inspired writings. He 
spoke of the prophecies contained in those books, 
and in the Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel, and the other 
Hebrew prophets, as " the true sayings of God." As 
Christians we cannot abandon the teaching of Christ, 
or forget the endorsement of the Old Testament 
books by the writers of the New. We, therefore, 
refuse to seat ourselves as pupils at the feet 
of critics who to a large extent regard the Old 
Testament histories as mere fictions, and the visions 
of the Hebrew prophets as only grand poetical 
imaginations. 

For it cannot be denied that some eminent scholars, 
whose judgment on points of criticism is often 
regarded as conclusive, have no faith in the super- 
natural; and do not believe in the Resurrection of 
Christ as a fact of history, or in the Divinity of 
Christ as a tenet of theology. Their critical judg- 
ments are as distinctly conditioned by such opinions 
as those of any theologian. For passages of the Old 
Testament which profess to be predictions of the 
future, must, according to such principles, have been 
written subsequent to the events described, if such 
events can be shown to have occurred in the course 
of history. One is obliged, indeed, to argue from 
such a standpoint when discussing the date of a book 



PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION, xi 

like that of Enoch. But the position assumed by 
Christ and by the writers of the New Testament in 
regard to the books of the Old Testament ought to 
prevent Christian scholars from viewing the latter 
books from such a sceptical standpoint. 

In discussing the evidences of Christianity the 
Christian theologian must indeed be prepared to argue 
from historical evidence. He cannot assume that 
anything will be conceded to him by opponents. But 
in questions affecting the origin and dates of the 
books of the Old Testament the Christian critic ought 
to start from the basis of the New Testament. He 
must, no doubt, be prepared to argue with any opponent 
that disputes that position. But he ought not to 
consent himself to judge the Old Testament from a 
naturalistic standpoint, which discredits a priori all 
that savours of the character of miracle or prophecy. 
On the other hand, the phenomena presented by the 
Old Testament books must be investigated apart from 
all a priori theories of inspiration, formulated by 
Gaussen, or Lee, or any other writer. Within such 
limits on either side, the more calmly and scientifically 
the matter is examined the better. 

There was a chorus of exultation in England 
when Dr. Pusey, in 1864, published his book on 
Daniel the Prophet. It was then loudly asserted 
that a decisive victory had been won over the 
German critics who had long called in question 



xii PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION. 

the genuineness and authenticity of that book. It 
was in vain that a few critics expressed themselves 
dissatisfied with the nature and tone of that apology. 
The first number of the Contempwcury Review (Jan. 
1866) contained a critique on Dr. Pusey's work from 
the pen of Dr. Perowne, then Vice- Principal of 
Lampeter, now Bishop of Worcester. Although 
that article maintained the traditional view, it led 
to Dr. Perowne's orthodoxy being at that time sus- 
pected in many quarters. 

The times, however, have completely changed. Mr. 
Ottley, Bampton Lecturer for 1896, and late Principal 
of the Pusey House, Oxford, in his Bampton Lectures 
regards the Book of Daniel " as apparently com- 
posed as a manual of consolation for the confessors 
and martyrs of the Maccabean period." However 
speciously expressed, this is nothing else than a 
concession that the Book of Daniel is a compound 
of fictitious history and pretended prophecy. That 
its author had a religious object in view in com- 
posing his fictions is a plea which can with equal 
justice be put forward in defence of the most con- 
temptible of the New Testament Apocrypha. Mr. 
Ottley's views are, however, shared by other eminent 
English scholars. What would Dr. Pusey have said, 
could he have foreseen such a future ? 

It may be asked whether any new evidence in 
disparagement of the Book of Daniel has been 



PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION, xiii 

discovered since the publication of Dr. Pusey's volume 
to account for this remarkable change in theological 
circles. The answer is that any additional evidence 
is rather in favour of its history than otherwise. 
The writer of this Introduction hopes soon to be 
able to publish a critical arid exegetical commentary 
on the Book of Daniel. A portion of the work 
has been already delivered in a series of terminal 
lectures before the University of Oxford during the 
last four years. He cannot, indeed, take down 
Dr. Pusey's trumpet from the wall, and blow the 
same blast of defiance as Pusey did ; to no purpose, 
as the result has proved. The defence of the Book 
of Daniel requires to be to a considerable extent 
conducted on different lines. But the writer hopes, 
while appreciating any proved results of modern 
criticism, to be able to show that the conclusions 
adverse to the historical and prophetical truth of 
the Book of Daniel are far from being justified by 
facts. 

The writer's commentary on Daniel, though long 
promised, has been delayed owing to a variety of 
causes. It was originally intended to bring out 
the work as one of the volumes of the Pulpit 
Commentary. Circumstances obliged that idea to 
be abandoned; and the Bev. J. E. H. Thomson, 
B.D., a young scholar of no mean attainments, now 
missionary in Safed, Palestine, has ably supplied the 



xiv PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION. 

" missing link " in that series. It is no easy matter 
for a clergyman engaged in active ministerial work 
to obtain the leisure necessary for the accomplish- 
ment of such heavy literary work, or to afford the 
expenditure of money which it involves. The reference 
made to that forthcoming work on p. 196 necessitates 
this explanation. 

There are critics who seem scarcely able to refrain 
from expressing contempt at the mention of any 
works on the Old Testament which take up a defensive 
or conservative position. Like professed theologians, 
who often decry controversy, while assuming them- 
selves a controversial attitude, these critics despise 
apologies because they have in many cases cast aside 
all theological dogmas. Modern criticism, as now 
in fashion, bids fair ultimately to extinguish all faith 
in criticism. When one great critic can affirm 
that the first part of the Book of Isaiah is a 
mosaic, so badly put together that it has first to be 
broken into pieces, in order that its pieces may be 
readjusted according to his fancy ; when another, 
commenting on the great prophecy of Dan. ix. 24-27, 
proposes alterations in every clause of the text but 
one (for none of which any external authority can 
be adduced) ; when a third has ingeniously suggested 
that the Book of Isaiah is a composite work com- 
posed of fragments of many different writers, — one 
can easily see that if in time past theologians have 



PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION, xv 

brought discredit on theology by all sorts of forced 
harmonistic hypotheses, the critics, although they 
have occupied the field for a much shorter period, 
have already outdone the theologians. 

Both critics and theologians, however, are necessary 
in their respective departments, and we are far from 
decrying even the higher critics of our day. The 
storm of criticism lias not shaken, nor will it shake, 
the citadel of the Sacred Scriptures ; concerning which 
writings we may amrm as confidently as ever in the 
words of Article VI. of the Church of England : 
" Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to 
salvation : so that whatsoever is not read therein, 
nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of 
any man, that it should be believed as an article of 
the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to 
salvation." 

The writer had to express in 1890 sorrow for the 
loss of personal friends who laboured long in the field 
of Biblical literature, and he is again reminded of 
the sad gaps in the ranks of such friends since 
that date. Prof. W. Eobertson Smith and Prof. 
R. L. Bensly of Cambridge, Prof. A. Dillmann of 
Berlin and Prof. A. Kohler of Erlangen, most of 
them friends of long standing ; Dr. R Payne Smith, 
late Dean of Canterbury, a friend since 1857, and 
Mr. G. J. Spurrell, several years his colleague as 
Examiner in the London University, are alas ! now 



xvi PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION. 

numbered with the dead. Their deaths forcibly bring 
home the importance of our Lord's saying : " We 
must work while it is day : the night comet h, when 
no man can work " (John ix. 4). 

44, Eock Park, Rock Feeey, 

Birkenhead, March, 1898. 



PREFACE TO THE FIRST 
EDITION 

r I THE manual of Introduction to the Old Testa- 
-*- ment now presented to the English student 
endeavours to give the ascertained results of modern 
criticism, as far as is possible within very confined 
limits. The lists of works, English and foreign, 
appended under each heading, point out the sources 
where fuller information can be obtained, and may, 
perhaps, stir up some to take a deeper interest in 
Biblical studies. 

Those lists do not pretend to be exhaustive. 
Among the books of special importance to the Biblical 
student is the Blbliotheca Rabbinica of Dr. August 
Wiinsche, being a German translation of the entire 
Midrash Rabbah, etc., with notes, which has opened 
up that rich treasury of myth, legend, and parable to 
a wider circle of readers. Those ancient Midrashim, 
notwithstanding many short-comings and mistakes, 
afford much information to the student of the Old 
Testament. 

The Bibliotheca Rabbinica has been published in 
parts from 1880-1885, and contains the Midrash on 
Genesis (pp. 558), on Exodus (pp. 408), Leviticus 



xviii PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 

(pp. 298), Numbers (pp. 676), Deuteronomy (pp. 184), 
besides the Megilloth, Esther (pp. 102), Ruth (pp. 
98), Lamentations (pp. 176), Koheleth (pp. 165), 
Song of Songs (pp. 208), the Pesikta of Rab Kahana 
(pp. 300), and the Midrash on Proverbs (pp. 76). 
These numbers include the Notes, but not the Intro- 
ductions. The extent and importance of the work is 
thus apparent. 

In England besides the Speaker's Commentary and 
the Pulpit Commentary, much new work has been 
done. The Bishop of Gloucester's Old Testament 
Commentary for English Readers, 5 vols., royal 8vo, 
especially on the Prophets, is worthy of the attention 
of scholars, though not referred to in our pages. 
Bishop Wordsworth's Holy Bible with Notes and 
Introductions will often repay a reference. Dr. Joseph 
Parker's People's Bible — vols, i.-xiii. already published, 
including Genesis to Proverbs (Hodder & Stoughton) 
— is not critical, though often highly suggestive. 
Nisbet's series of Men of the Bible has been occa- 
sionally referred to, and might have been referred 
to throughout. The Religious Tract Society's 
scholarly series of By-paths of Bible Knowledge has 
brought recondite information to almost every door. 
The Records of the Past, or the English translations 
of the Assyrian and Egyptian monuments, edited 
by S. Birch, LL.D., vols, i.-xii., ought to be more 
known ; and the new series, edited by Professor 
Sayce, of which four volumes have already appeared, 



PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, xix 

promises still better things. The Porta Linguarum 
Orientalium, edited by J. H. Petermann and H. L. 
Strack, deserves more attention than might appear 
from the casual references made to it in these pages. 
It embraces two volumes of Assyrian grammar and 
chrestomathy by Friedr. Delitzsch, 1889, and an 
Ethiopic grammar and chrestomathy by Pratorius. 
Gustav Dalman is writing in the same series a 
grammar, vnth. chrestomathy, of the Palestinian 
Talmud. The publications of the Palestine Ex- 
ploration Fund are in many ways valuable, as well 
as the works of the German Society established for 
the same purpose. Especially useful is Names and 
Places in the Old Testament and Apocrypha, 1887, 
issued by the Palestine Exploration Fund. Schiirer's 
massive Geschichte des jiklischen Volkes im Zeitalter 
Jesu Christi, 2nd ed., 1886, 1889, 1890, cannot be 
dispensed with. T. and T. Clark have begun the 
publication of an English translation. Nor must 
Hatch's Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889, be forgotten. 

The problems connected with the Holy Scriptures 
of the Old Testament are numerous and intricate. 
Although so much has been effected in modern times, 
the field of research cannot yet be considered 
exhausted. Discoveries in the departments of 
Assyriology and Egyptology have done muci. to 
elucidate the meaning of many passages of Holy 
Writ, but they have sometimes brought to light 
new difficulties. Those discoveries are even now 



xx PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 

only in their infancy, and much has yet to be 
accomplished by the aid of the spade and pickaxe 
in Palestine and Egypt, and elsewhere, ere we can 
regard many Old Testament questions as finally 
settled. 

In every field of scientific investigation hypotheses 
have been found necessary in order to group together 
known facts, and to lead onward to new discoveries. 
Theories which have proved ultimately to be erroneous 
have yet frequently been productive of great results. 
The earnest seeker after truth in the department of 
Biblical research ought, therefore, to be tolerant of 
speculations, even when opposed to his holiest 
sentiments and convictions. No theory of modern 
days has created more repugnance among orthodox 
expositors than the Graf-Wellhausen theory of the 
composition of the Pentateuch. And yet it is well 
to observe that even the strongest defenders of that 
theory, while insisting on the very late compilation of 
the Pentateuch, maintain that the substance of many 
of its narratives and laws was in existence at a far 
earlier date. The theory does not necessarily make 
the Pentateuch a mere fabrication of designing 
priests, as is sometimes affirmed. In setting forth 
the consequences of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, 
this ought to be borne in mind. 

The Old Testament Scriptures have, alas ! been 
treated by many critics with an irreverence which 
cannot be too strongly condemned. On the other 



PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, xxi 

hand, it must not be forgotten that opinions branded 
as irreverent and dangerous in one age, have some- 
times been unanimously accepted in another. The 
dangers predicted by timid theologians have often 
proved to be unreal. Instances of this fact will 
be found mentioned in the following pages. When, 
however, we consider the reverence due to the 
Scriptures as the channel of Divine revelation, one 
cannot wonder at such fears. The antagonists of 
"faith" have often exultingly cried, like the 
children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem 
(Ps. cxxxvii. 7), "Rase it, rase it, even to the 
foundation thereof." But the shout has not been 
one of victory, like that of the children of Israel 
before the walls of Jericho. The Bible still firmly 
holds its place as " the Book of Books " even at the 
close of the nineteenth century. New generations of 
sceptics continue, no doubt, to predict the coming 
" eclipse of faith," but are destined to prove in 
due time "false prophets," like those before them. 

A recent author has shown that the introduction 
of law into the phenomena of the spiritual world is 
free from many of the dangers which seemed likely 
to beset such an attempt. The assertion of modern 
criticism is that the phenomena which characterise 
the literatures of other nations are to be found in the 
Old Testament books. But even shoidd the assertion 
prove true, the fact (when rightly understood) will 
not lessen the reverence for the Sacred Scriptures. 



xxii P BE FACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 

Those writings are in many aspects wholly unique. 
They have, however, a human side as well as a 
Divine. The Divine and the human element meet 
together in the written Word, as well as in "the 
Word made flesh." 

The Synagogue and the Church have rightly main- 
tained that the Old Testament Scriptures are the 
work of Divinely-inspired men. There are certain 
landmarks which no flood of advancing criticism will 
ever sweep away : — 

" The floods have lifted up, Jehovah ! 
The floods have lifted up their voice ; 
The floods lift up their waves. 
Above the voices of many waters, 
The mighty breakers of the sea, 
Jehovah on high is mighty. 
Thy testimonies are very sure : 
Holiness becometh Thine house, 
Jehovah ! for evermore." — Ps. rciii. 3-5. 

The conclusion of the author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews remains as true as ever : " God, having of 
old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets 
by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at 
the end of these days spoken unto us in His Son." 

In issuing a new book on the Old Testament, I 
am painfully reminded of the loss of some friends 
who assisted me by their kindly aid and counsel in 
former works. Professor Franz Delitzsch's death, on 
.March 3rd, 1890, put an end to a warm friend- 
ship of over twenty-five years, and has left a blank 



PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, xxiii 

which will long be felt in the ranks of Old Testament 
expositors. His profound scholarship and earnest 
piety need no more than a passing reference. The 
death, May 22nd, 1889, of Dr. William Wright, 
Professor of Arabic in the University of Cambridge, 
who was universally acknowledged as in the foremost 
rank of Semitic scholars, has closed an unbroken 
friendship of considerably more than thirty years, 
which began when I was his pupil in Trinity College, 
Dublin. The loss of two such eminent scholars will 
long be regretted. The Lectures on the Comparative 
Grammar of the Semitic Languages of Professor 
William Wright, just published under the able 
editorship of Professor W. Robertson Smith, his 
successor in the Cambridge chair, are a contribution 
of great importance to the Biblical student. 

I was not aware until after this manual had been 
sent to press that the Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., Canon 
of Christ Church, and Regius Processor of Hebrew 
at Oxford, had undertaken a work of the same 
character, though considerably more extensive in its 
aims. Professor Driver's work is in the press, and 
will be published in the early part of next year. 
The same able Hebraist is taking part in a new 
Hebrew-English Lexicon, based on the latest editions 
of Gesenius by Miihlau and Volck. The plan of the 
work is due to two eminent American scholars, 
Professors Dr. C. A. Briggs, and Dr. Brown of the 
Union Theological Seminary, New York, the latter 



xxiv PllEFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 

being chief editor. The work is now in the press, and 
when published will supply a desideratum long needed 
by English students of Hebrew. 

In conclusion, I must acknowledge my obligations 
to the Rev. T. K. Abbott, B.D., F.T.C.D., Librarian 
and Professor of Hebrew in the University of Dublin; 
and to Mr. Spun ell, M.A., my co -Examiner in Hebrew 
and New Testament Greek in the University of 
London, who have most kindly assisted me- both in 
the reading of the proof sheets of this little work, 
and by suggestions which have been duly embodied 
in its pages. 

33, Mespil Road, Dublin, 
November 5th, 189Q 



CONTENTS. 

PART I. 

CHdP. TAGS 

I. Historical Sketch op Introductions to 

the Old Testament 1 

II. The Printed Hebrew Editions of the Old 

Testament 10 

III. The State op the Hebrew Text, and the 

Hebrew MSS 14 

IV. History of the Hebrew Punctuation, 

Hebrew Grammars, Lexicons, etc. . . 23 

V. The Jewish Massorah 31 

VI. The Targums, Aramaic Texts, Grammars, etc. 40 
VII. The Syriac Versions of the Old Testament, 

Syriac Texts, Grammars, etc. ... 49 

VIII. The Greek Versions .53 

IX. The Ancient Latin Versions . ... 64 

PART II. THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
THE PENTATEUCH:— 

X. The Pentateuch in General .... 70 
XL Sketch of the History of Pentateuch 

Criticism . . . . . .85 

The Literature of that Subject . , 101 
Literature on the Pentateuch . . 102 
XII. The Several Books of the Pentateuch : — 

§ 1. Genesis . 105 

Literature . 107 

§ 2. Exodus 109 

Literature 110 

§ 3. Leviticus . . . . . . . .111 

Literature . . . . . . . 112 

XXY 



Txvi CONTENTS. 

The Several Books of the Pentateuch— con- 
tinued. 

CHAP. fAGE 

§ 4. Numbers 112 

Literature . 114 

§ 6. Deuteronomy m 

Literature , .116 

XIII. The Historical Books : - 

§ 1. The Book of Joshua 118 

Literature 120 

Samaritan Chronicle 121 

§ 2. The Book of Judges 122 

Literature 125 

§ 3. The Book of Ruth 126 

Literature 126 

§ 4. The Books of Samuel 127 

Literature 129 

§ 5. The Books of the Kings 130 

Literature 132 

§ 6. The Books of the Chronicles . . .132 

Literature 136 

§ 7. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiaii . . 137 

Literature 139 

§ 8. The Book of Esther . ... 140 

Omission op the Name of God in the 

Book 141 

Apocryphal Additions 144 

Literature 146 

XIV. The Poetical Books :— 

§ 1. The Book of Job 147 

Subject of Book 149 

Critical Questions 150 

Literature 151 

§ 2. TnE Book of Psalms 152 

Name and Division 153 

Number of Psalms 156 

Superscriptions and Authorship . 157 

Literature 158 



CONTENTS. 



xxvii 



The Poetical Books— continued. 

CHAP. 

§ 3. The Book of Proverbs :— 

Name and Contents .'.'.. 

Authorship 

Literature 

§ 4. The Book op Koueleth or Ecclesiastes 

Name, Authorship, and Contents 

Literature 

§ 5. The Song of Songs:— 

Authorship axd Contents . 

Literature 



XV. 
§1. 



The Prophets : — 
On the Prophets in General 
Literature . 



A. The Four Greater Prophc 
$ 2. The Book op Isaiah :— 

Contents and Authorship . 

First Portion .... 

Second Portion 

Literature .... 
§ 3. The Book op Jeremiah 

Contents and Authorship . 

Literature .... 
§ 4. The Book of Lamentations 

Literature .... 
§ 5. The Book of Ezekiel 

Contents and Authorship . 

Peculiarities of the Book. 

Literature .... 
§ 6. The Book of Daniel :— 

History and Legends of Daniel 

Contents of the Book . 

References to the Book . 

Apocryphal Additions . 

Literature .... 
XVI. b. The Twelve Minor Prophets 

Literature .... 



160 
162 
163 

164 
167 

168 
171 



173 



175 

175 
178 
180 
182 
183 
185 
186 
187 
187 
188 
189 
191 

191 
192 
194 
197 
197 

199 



xxviii CONTENTS. 

a. The Nine Pre-exilian. 

CHAP PAGE 

§ 1. HOSEA 200 

Contents and Date 201 

Literature 202 

§ 2. The Book op Joel 202 

Contents and Style 203 

Literature 204 

§ 3. The Book of Amos :— 

Contents . 205 

Literature 205 

§ 4. The Book of Obadiah :— 

Name and Contents • . , 206 

Literature 207 

§ 5. The Book of Jonah 207 

History or Allegory ..... 208 

Literature . 212 

§ 6. The Book of Micah :— 

Contents and Authorship .... 213 

Literature 215 

§ 7. The Book of Nahum ... . 215 

Literature .216 

§ 8. The Book of Habakkuk 216 

Literature . 217 

§ 9. The Book of Zephaniah 218 

Literature ... ... 219 

b. The Three Post-exilian, 

§ 10. The Book of Haggai . . . .219 

Literature 220 

§ 11. The Book of Zechariah :— 

The First Part .... .221 

The Second Part 222 

Literature 224 

§ 12. The Book of Malachi 225 

Literature ••..... 226 

Bibliographical Appendix to Fourth Edition . 227 



PAET I. 



CHAPTER I. 

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF INTRODUCTIONS, 

1. " INTRODUCTIONS " to the Old and New 
J- Testament Scriptures are of comparatively 
recent growth. The monk Adrian wrote in the 
fifth century an €t<raytoy^ €19 raq Oeias ypat^as, but 
it contained little of what would now be compre- 
hended under the title. See Ad. Merx, Eine 
Rede vom Auslegen ins besondere des A. T., 1879. 
The Instituta regularia divince legis, by Junilius 
(died 552), quaestor of the Holy Palace in Constanti- 
nople, contains in its first part a general introduction 
to the Holy Scriptures. The work of Cassiodorius, 
senator, De institutione divinarum litterarum, written 
shortly after, contains much which would even now 
be comprehended under the name of an "Intro- 
duction." "Introductions" were, however, almost 
unknown in the Middle Ages. 

2. The Reformation of the sixteenth century gave 
an impetus to Biblical studies of all kinds. The 
scholars of that period in general discussed questions 
connected with the Bible in the light of the con- 

1 



2 HISTORICAL SKETCH 

troversy then raging as to the authority of Holy 
Scripture and that of the Church, and the non* 
canonicity of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Tes- 
tament. 

The theologians of the sixteenth century derived 
their knowledge of Hebrew and Old Testament 
literature mainly from Jewish sources. Elias Levita, 
the greatest Jewish scholar of the age (born 1474, 
died 1549), was the main link by which the Christian 
.scholars of that age were connected with the Jews 
of the preceding ages. J. Reuchlin (born 1454, and 
died 1521), the first Hebrew grammarian among the 
Christians, whose Rudimenta appeared in 1506, was 
much influenced by Levita's writings, though he does 
not seem to have adopted Levita's peculiar views. 
From Reuchlin and Sebastian Miinster (born 1489, 
died 1552), the latter a good Hebraist and editor of 
Levita's works, Luther and the other scholars of that 
age derived their acquaintance with Hebrew. Not- 
withstanding the sobriety of the views expressed by 
Luther, and even by Calvin, who both admitted the 
modern origin of the vowel-points in Hebrew — although 
this fact has been often strangely denied — the scholars 
of the Reformation, pressed by the difficulties urged 
by their Roman Catholic antagonists, and with the 
object in view of afiirming the certainty of the Holy 
Scriptures, were led to give credence to the state- 
ments of modern Jewish scholars as to the correctness 
of the Massoretic text on the one hand, and the an- 
tiquity of the Hebrew system of vocalization on the 
other. 

3. The opinions expressed by Levita in opposition 



OF INTRODUCTIONS. 3 

to the generally believed view of the antiquity of 
the Hebrew punctuation (see chap, iv.) attracted at 
first little attention, especially as they were considered 
to have been fully met and answered by the elder 
Buxtorf in his Tiberias, 1620, best edit. 1665. The 
publication of the Arcanum punctationis revelatum 
(first published 1624, by Erpenius, without the name 
of the author), opened a new era. The work, which 
was a crushing reply to Buxtorf, the Coryphaeus of 
Hebrew scholarship, was soon acknowledged to have 
been written by Lud. Cappellus, professor in Saumur 
in France (born 1586, died 1658). Cappellus main- 
tained that the Hebrew vowel points and accents were 
utterly unknown to the Biblical writers themselves, 
and were introduced centuries after the Christian era. 
The views of Cappellus were condemned by the 
greatest Hebrew scholars of his day. The younger 
Buxtorf wrote an able defence of his father's views, 
Tractatus de puncL voc. et accent, in libb. V. T. Heb. 
origine, 1648. The Buxtorfs, both father and son, 
and for a long time the great majority of the ablest- 
Hebraists, upheld the antiquity of the vowel points. 
The controversy has, however, long since been decided 
in the opposite direction. Cappellus wrote in 1648-9 
a Vindiciaz of his early work, but the book was not 
published till 1689, long after the author's death. 
His views deeply influenced the learned Joh. Morinus, 
who renounced Protestantism and became a Father 
of the Oratory in Paris, whose Discourses on the 
Sam. Pent, were published in Paris in 1631, and his 
Prolegomena in an edition of the LXX. in folio, 1628. 
Only Liber i, of Morinus' Exercit. biblicarum de Heb. 



4 HISTORICAL SKETCH 

Grcccique text, sinceritate libri duo appeared in 1633, 
during his lifetime. He died in 1659, and his work 
was published in folio in 1669. Morinus' work was 
in many ways important, although in the interest 
of his Church he maintained the superiority of the 
texts of the LXX., Vulgate, and Samaritan, to 
that of the Hebrew, and maintained that God would 
have the Hebrew Scriptures written without points, 
in order that men might learn to submit to the 
judgment of the Church, instead of following their 
own private judgment ! 

4. B. Spinoza (1632-1677) was a decided Pantheist, 
and believed the Scriptures to contain no Divine 
revelation. The miracles of the Bible according to 
him were purely legendary, and he maintained that 
everything supernatural must be rejected as untrue. 
But notwithstanding such errors, Spinoza as a Biblical 
critic anticipated in many points the conclusions which 
have been slowly reached by modern criticism. 

5. Bichard Simon (born 1638, a Father of the 
Oratory in Paris, died 1712), published in 1678 his 
Histoire Critique du Vieux Test. The book was 
condemned and confiscated, but produced a lasting 
impression. It was a work of learning and research, 
and its conclusions, though then generally regarded 
with horror, would be now on many points con- 
sidered conservative. According to Simon, the Pen- 
tateuch in its present shape is not the work of 
Moses. His theory, as summarised by Strack, is 
as follows : In all Eastern states there have been 
official historiographers, and a similar class existed 
among the Hebrews since the days of Moses. In 



OF INTRODUCTIONS. 5 

the case of the Hebrews their historiographers were, 
however, inspired prophets. These recorded not only 
what was of importance in their own day, but altered, 
abridged, and enlarged the works of their predeces- 
sors. All such writings were collected by Ezra and 
his successors ; and from the material so brought 
together, the books of the Old Testament were ar- 
ranged in the form in which they are now extant. 

6. The following works are of special importance : — J. H. 
Hottinger, Thesaurus Philologicus seu clavis Scriptures, 1649. 
2nd edit., enlarged, 1659, and after the death of the author, 
1696. Bishop Brian Walton (died 1661), Prolegomena affixed 
to the London Polyglott, 1657 [see chap, ii.], issued separately 
by Heidegger, 1673, and by J. A. Dathe in 1777 : also by 
Francis Wrangham, 2 vols., 8vo, Cantab. 1828. J. G. Carpzov, 
Introductio ad libros canon. Bill. Veteris Test. omnes i etc. 
3rd edit. 1741, and 4th, 1756-7, and his Oritica Sacra Vet. 
Test, 2nd edit. 1748. J. Chr. Wolf, Bibliotlieca Ifebrcea. The 
Old Testament is treated in torn. ii. (1721) and iv. (1733). 

Among the special Introductions of the eighteenth century 
the following must be noted : J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in 
das A. T. 1780-83. 4th edit, five vols., 1823-24, comprising 
3,199 pp. Eichhorn was a valuable and voluminous writer. 
J. D. Michaelis, Einleitung in die gottlichen Scliriften des 
alt. Bundes, 1787. The first volume only appeared, and was 
directed against Eichhorn. Georg Lorenz Bauer published in 
1794 his Entwurf einer Einleitung in die Scliriften des alt. 
Test. The 3rd edition of this work appeared under a slightly 
altered title in 1806. Entwurf einer hist.-krit. Einleitung, 
etc. Bauer in the main adopts the opinions of Eichhorn. 

The present century is peculiarly rich in Introductions. 
DeiWette in 1817 published his Lehrb. der liist.-krit. Einl. in 
die canon, u. apocr. Buclier des A. T. The 7th edition of 
this work appeared in 1852, The 8th edition, edited by 
Eb. Schrader in 1869, is an Introduction based on De Wette, 



6 HISTORICAL SKETCH 

rather than an edition of De "Wette. It is, however, in many 
respects a valuable work. 

Almost simultaneously with the work of De Wette, though 
differing from it in method and spirit, Kev. Thomas Hartwell 
Home published in 1818 his Introduction to the critical study 
and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. The work was at 
first comprised in three volumes, but was afterwards increased 
to five thick volumes (the second volume being divided into 
two). The 10th edition appeared in 1856, the second volume, 
on The Text of the Old Testament, having been edited by Dr. 
Samuel Davidson. The opinions therein expressed by Davidson 
gave considerable umbrage in England, though in most points 
they would now be considered conservative. Another edition 
of vol. ii. was issued in 1860, edited by Kev, J. Ayre, which 
harmonised more with the other portions of that work. 

In 1836 and 1837 an important work appeared on the orthodox 
side by H. A. C. Havernick, already distinguished by an able 
commentary on the Book of Daniel, namely, Handb. der histor.- 
Jtrit. Einleitung ins A. T. The 1st vol. appeared in two parts, 
the first comprehending the general introduction consisting of 
316 pp., the second part on the Pentateuch, of 644 pp. The 
latter portion has been translated into English, and published 
by T. and T. Clark under the title : Hist.- Critical Intro- 
duction to the Pent., 1850. The 2nd vol. was likewise divided 
into two, the first portion on the Historical books (365 pp.), 
appeared in 1839. followed in 1844 by that on the Prophetical 
books, the 3rd vol. on the Poetical books was published 
after the death of the author (which occurred in 1845), in 
1849 (comprising 519 pp.), worked up and edited by C. F. Keil. 
The 2nd edition edited by Keil did not, however, extend 
beyond the 1st vol., which was edited in two parts in 1854 
and 1856, that editor meanwhile having written a work of his 
own traversing the same ground. 

Heinrich Ewald appeared on the scene in 1843. Ewald 
published no formal Introduction to the Old Testament, but 
his Biblical works are so numerous as to cover the whole of 
the ground which would naturally be embraced in such a 
work. His commentary on special books will be alluded to 



OF INTRODUCTIONS. 7 

elsewhere. His Gesch. des Volltes Israel, in three volumes, 
1843-1852, must here be noted, the 3rd edition of -which 
issued in 1864-68, comprises seven thick volumes. This work 
has been translated into English by J. Estlin Carpenter, and 
published by Longmans and Co. in eight large volumes at various 
dates from 3rd edit., 1883. Dean Stanley's History of the Jewish 
Church, the 6th edition of which work appeared in three 
volumes in 1875, is in the main founded on the History of 
Ewald, whose opinions on many points are reproduced and 
set forth in a more vivid and popular style. Ewald 's work 
on Die Alterthumer des Volkes Israel, 1866, ought here to be 
mentioned, and his Jahrbiicher der bill. Wissenschaft in 
twelve parts, published between 1848 and 1865. 

C. F. Keil in 1853 published his Lehrbuch der hist.- 
hrit. Eiril. in die kanonisch. Schrift. des A. T. In the 2nd 
edition the Apocryphal books were added. The 3rd edition 
(776 pp.) appeared in 1873. This work, like all Keil's com- 
mentaries, is written from a decidedly orthodox standpoint. 
J. J. Stahelin's Einleitung in die kan. Biicher, published in 
1862, is smaller, but important. 

In England, Dr. S. Davidson, whose edition of Home, 
vol. ii., has been alluded to above, published his own 
Introduction to the Old Testament, Critical, Historical and 
Theological, in three vols., in 1862. The work contains much 
valuable matter, but exhibits signs of haste, is written from a 
much more "advanced" standpoint than its author assumed 
in 1860. It is unfortunately permeated by a bitterness of 
spirit, perhaps natural under the circumstances. No work 
of equal importance has a3 yet appeared in England on the 
orthodox side. An earlier work of the same author on Biblical 
Criticism issued in 1854, is still of importance for the English 
student, and treats of many subjects which would naturally 
find a place in a formal Introduction. Dr. Davidson published 
in 1855 another important work, The Hebrew Text of the Old 
Testament Revised. His work on The Canon of the Bible, its 
formation, history, and fluctuations, 3rd edition, 1880, is a 
reprint of his article in 9th edit, of the Encvdorfcedia 
Britannica with additions. 



8 HISTORICAL SKETCH 

Friedr. Bleek's Einleitung in das A. T., published in 1860, 
a year after the death of its author, has had considerable 
influence. The 3rd edition, edited by Ad. Kamphausen in 
ia specially useful for students. The 4th edition was 
partly re-written by J. Wellhausen (1878), i.e. on Judges, 
Samuel, Kings, etc. The 5th edit. (1886) is mainly a reprint 
of Bleek's own work. Both these editions contain a long 
and important section on the Text of the Old Test, by 
Wellhausen. 

In this department it is convenient here to mention Theodor 
Noldeke's works, his Alt-test. Eiteratur in einer Reihe von 
Avfsatzen dargesteUt, 1868, and his Untersuehungenzur Kriti'k 
des A. T., 1869. Ab. Geiger, Urschrift w. Uebersetzungen 
der Bibel, 1857 ; Fiirst, Gesch. des bill. Lit. in 2 vols., 1867, 
1870, as well as his work on Ber Kanon des A. T., nach den 
Ueberlieferungen in Talmud u. Midrasch, 1868, are important 
for students, as are W. Bobertson Smith's works : The Old 
Testament in the Jewish Church, 1881, and The Prophet* of 
Israel and their Place in History, 18S2, however much one 
may differ from the views therein propounded. 

Ed. Beuss, Geschichte der heil. Schriften A. H, was 
published in 1881. A new and enlarged edition (780 pp.) 
has appeared this year, 1890. Ya:>-r ; . E .Jeitung 

was published in 1886, edited by Dr. Preiss long after the 
death of its author, the literature brought down to the present 
time. A. Kuenen published at Leyden his Hut.-hrit. Onder- 
zoek in 1863-65, of the first part of which, a Germ, trans., 
has appeared, ed. by Th. Weber, 1886-1890, :. ? well as a French 
trans. An English trans., of Part, i., by P. H. Wicksteed. i 
Grit. Hist, of Origin and Comp. of the Hexateueh, has been 
published by Macmillan. 1886. 

H. L. Stracks short but important Einleitung appeared 
in Zockler's Handbuch der theol. Wissenschaften, Band L, in 
1885, 3rd ed. 1888 ; it can be had separately. To these may- 
be added a small but well executed work by Frants Buhl, 
Professor in Copenhagen, now in Leipzig, Ben gammel testa- 
vientlige Skriftoverlevering : i. Kanons historie ; ii. Tekstens 
hist, Copenhagen, 1885. A. Brandt has also published a 



OF INTRODUCTIONS. 

Bearbeitung of E. Riehm's Einleitung in d. A. T., Band i., 
Die Thora und die vorderen Propheten, 1889. 

The Biblical dictionaries must not be lost sight of. Among 
the German are to be noted among the earlier, Winer's Bibl. 
Realworterbuch, 2 vols, 1847, 1848 ; the very convenient 
Handworterbuch der bibl. Altertums, edited by Riehm in 
2 vols., 1884, and others, especially Herzog-Plitt, Encyclopcedie 
fiir prot. Tlieol. u. Kirolw ; Hamburger, Real-Encyclopcedie 
fur Bibel u. Talmud, 1870, 1883, and Supplement-band, 1886. 

Among the English, besides the Encyclopedia Britannica, 
which especially in its later editions contains many articles 
of value to the Biblical student, are to be mentioned, Kitto, 
Biblical Literature, 1845 ; 3rd edit, by W. L. Alexander, 
1862-70. Smith's Bible Dictionary, 3 vols, 1861, 1863. 

Several important works in this department have also been 
produced by Roman Catholic scholars on the Continent, such 
as J. Jahn's (died 1816) Einleitung in die gottl. Biicher des 
A. Bundes, 1st edition, 1793 ; 2nd edition, largely increased, 
in two thick volumes (570 and 1042 pp.), in 1802-3. J. G. 
Herbst (died 1836), Hist.-hrit. Eittl. in die lieil. Schriften 
des A. T, ed. by Welte, 1840-1844. J. M. A. Scholz (died 
1852), Einleitung in die heilig. Schr. des A. T., 1844-1848, 
left unfinished. D. Haneberg, Gesch. der bibl. Offenb. als 
Einl., 1850 ; 4th edition, 1876 (882 pp.). F. H. Reusch, Lehrb. 
der Einl., 1859 ; 4th edition, 1870. Franz Kaulen, Einl. in 
die heil. Schrift, A,u, N t T„ 1876 and 1881, 2nd ed. 1884. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE PRINTED HEBREW EDITIONS OF THE 
OLD TESTAMENT. 

1. rpHE first portion of the Hebrew Old Testa- 
-*- ment printed was the Book of Psalms, 
issued in 1477 along with Kimchi's commentary. 
In 1488 the complete Hebrew Bible was printed in 
folio in Soncino. It was afterwards printed in Pesaro 
in 1494, and in Brescia the same year. The latter 
edition was that used by Luther, and the copy that 
belonged to the great Reformer is still preserved in 
the Royal Library, Beilin. 

2. The Great Rabbinical Bibles, so called because 
they contain the Targum?, with various Jewish com- 
mentaries, were printed in four volumes folio, and 
issued from Bom berg's press as follows: (1) Yenice, 
1516-18, edited by Felix Prafensis. (2) Venice, 1524-5, 
edited by Jacob Ben Chayyim. This is the first 
edition with the Massorah Magna (see chap. v.). 
(3) Venice, 1546-48. (4) Id., 1568. (5) Id., 1617-19. 
(6) Joh. Buxtorf, the elder, brought out his important 
edition in Basle in 1618-19. Many corrections 
were introduced in this edition into the Massorah. 
Buxtorf unfortunately pointed the Targums after the 
analogy of the Aramaic portions in Ezra and Daniel. 



THE PRINTED HEBREW EDITIONS. 11 

(7) The most important, however, of the Rabbinical 
Bibles is the nvn rbnp, edited by Mosheh of Frank- 
fort, Amsterdam, 1724-27. 

3. The great Polyglott Bibles are the following : 
(1) The Complutensian, printed at the cost of Cardinal 
Ximenes, in six folio vols, 1514-17. The first four 
vols, contain the Old Testament. The Complutensian 
gives the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the 
Targums and LXX., all with Latin translations. The 
text of the LXX. there given is that of Lucian (see 
chap. viii.). (2) The Antioerp Polyglott was pub- 
lished in 1569-72, at the cost of Philip II., called 
therefrom Biblia regia, and also from its printer, 
Plantiniana. Its editor was Arias Montanus. The 
Old Testament is contained in the first four volumes. 
The Targum is appended to all the books of the 
Old Testament, except Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 
Chronicles. (3) The Paris Polyglott consists of ten 
large folios. The Old Testament is also contained 
in the first four volumes, reprinted from the 
Antwerp Polyglott. The New Testament occupies 
vols. v. and vi. The last three volumes contain the 
Samaritan Pentateuch and the Samaritan Version 
with the Syriac and Arabic translations of the Old 
Testament, all provided with Latin translations. 
(4) The most important is the London Polyglott, 
edited by Bishop Brian Walton, in eight folio volumes, 
1657. It contains the Hebrew text, the Samaritan 
Pentateuch, and the Samaritan Version, the LXX. 
with various readings of Cod. Alex., the Latin 
Vulgate, with the fragments of the old Latin trans- 
lation (the Ttala), and the Syriac and Arabic 



12 THE PRINTED HEBREW EDITIONS 

Versions ; the Targums (including that known as 
the Pseudo-Jon. and Jerusalem), together with the 
^Ethiopic Version of Psalms and Canticles, and a 
Persian translation of the Pentateuch, all with Latin 
translations. The first volume contains the valuable 
Prolegomena of Walton. The last two volumes, 
printed in 1669, contain the Lexicon heptaglottum of 
Ed. Castell — Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac, Samaritan, 
iEthiopic and Arabic, and a Persian Vocabulary. 

4. Besides these there are certain other important editions. 
Menachem ben Jehuda di Lonsano published in 1618. after- 
wards in 1659, the Pentateuch under the name mm "11N as 
a first part of an edition which was to have included the 
whole Old Testament. It contains a critical commentary, and 
a text founded on ten MSS. Norzi's Massoretic Bible Com- 
mentary, founded on his critical codex, completed in 1626. was 
first published by Raphael Chayyim Basila in his edition ol 
the Hebrew Bible, 1742-44. It is also contained in the 
Warsaw Rabbinical Bible. See for full description of these 
editions, Strack's Einleitvng, 3rd. ed. p. 262. 

Of considerable importance to the Hebrew student is the 
Biblia Helvetica (1720) of J. D. Michaelis (Professor in Halle, 
who died 1738), containing a collection of several important 
Hebrew MSS., the Massorah, parallel passages and short notes. 
This Bible can generally be had at a very moderate price. Ken- 
nicott's folio edition of Vet. Test. Heb. cum variis lectionibus, 
1776, 1780, though important, is in many respects disappointing. 
Of greater value is De Rossi, Varies Lectiones Vet. Test, ex 
immensa manuscriptorum editorumque codicum congerie 
haustee, four quarto vols., 1784-88, with his Schol. critica in 
V. T. libb.y ten supplementa ad varias sacri textus lectiones, 
4to, 1798. The collation of Kennicott extends only to the 
consonants, that of De Rossi embraces occasionally the punctua- 
tion. Useful for ordinary purposes is Dr. S. Davidson's Revised 
Hebrew Text, 1855, with a digest of various readings. But 
such works must be used with caution. 



OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 13 

5. A printed manual edition of the Hebrew Bible was firs-t 
issued by Bomberg in 1^17, and several times reprinted at 
later dates. Buxtorf also published such an edition in 1611, 
and J. Leusden in 1667, printed by Athias. Jablonksi's 4to 
edition, which was founded on former editions with a coll. 
of some MSS., appeared in 1699; and Van der Hooght's, which 
mainly followed Leusden's, appeared first in 1705, and was 
reprintcl with minor corrections by Aug. Hahn, 1831, and 
C. G. G. Theile, 1819, and at later dates. The most important 
editions of the Massoretic text, published in single parts, but 
unfortunately not yet completed, are those of S. Baer and Franz 
Delitzsch. Of the Pentateuch, only Genesis has yet appeared, 
published in 1869. Of "the former prophets" or Historical 
Books, no portion has yet appeared. " The later prophets " are 
now complete : Isaiah, 1872 ; Jeremiah, 1890 ; Ezehiel, 1884 ; 
and TJie Twelve, 1878. The Hagiographa is also complete, 
comprising Psalms, 1880; Proverbs,' 1880 ; Job, 1875. The 
Megilloth (Cant., Ruth, Threni, Eccl., Esther), 1886. Libri, 
Dan., Ezra, et Keh., 1882; Liber Chronicorum, 1888. No 
ordinary student should be without these texts. They contain 
important critical and Massoretic appendices, that of Daniel 
with full Chaldee paradigms of nouns, numerals, and verbs, 
and with important Latin prefaces. The Psalter especially 
is most important. Seligman Baer is the best Massoretic 
scholar of the day. The student should, however, note that 
there are different Massoretic traditions on some texts. See 
Strack, Tlieol. Lit. Zeitung, 1879, No. 8. 

Of unpointed editions we may note the Biblia Hebraica 
sine punctis, 1701. S. Baer published an unpointed edition 
of the Pentateuch in 1866 ; often reprinted ; and an edition of 
Genesis has been issued : Liber Geneseos sine punctis exscriptus 
curavit F. Miihlau et Aem. Kautzsch, 1868, 2nd. ed. 1885. 

Further information on the editions of the Hebrew Bible will 
be found in Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, 1715-33 ; J. Le Long, 
Biblioth. Sacra, fol. 1723. Bibl. Sacra post. . . . J. Le Long 
et C. F. Batrneri iter, curas ord. dispos. emend, etc. ab A. G. 
Masch, 1778-90. M. Steinschneider, Catal. libb. heb. in 
biblioth. Bodl, 1852-60. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE STATE OF THE HEBREW TEXT AND THE 
HEBREW MSS. 

1. TT^OR, a considerable time after the restoration 
-L of Hebrew studies, the text of the Hebrew- 
Bible was generally considered to be free from all 
serious corruption. The care taken by the Jewish 
copyists, and the minute directions given in the 
Massorah and elsewhere, all seemed to point to such 
a conclusion. The Massoretic scholars duly numbered 
the letters, noted the sections and middle words of each 
book, called attention to peculiarities of orthography, 
grammar and punctuation, accumulating a mass of 
grammatical and lexicographical notes, and giving 
in many cases a tolerably complete concordance. A 
*ext guarded so jealously was very naturally pre- 
sumed for all practical purposes to be well-nigh perfect. 
2. But the examination and collation of the exist- 
ing Hebrew MSS. by degrees dispelled that illusion. 
Human nature is prone to err, however elaborate 
may be the safeguards against such a weakness. 
Although the main contents of the sacred Scriptures 
have been well preserved, those Scriptures have not 
come down to us in the exact shape in which they 
were first written, <or even as finally edited by their 



THE STATE OF THE HEBREW TEXT. 15 

pre-Christian revisers. The Massoretes did their best 
to establish a uniform text, and in doing so stereo- 
typed not a few corruptions. And the Hebrew MSS., 
though substantially following the text as settled 
by those scholars, were, when duly examined by 
Kennicott, De Rossi, and others, proved to abound 
in mistakes, arising from accidental repetitions and 
omissions of letters and words, in the latter case 
frequently occasioned by similarity of ending (homoio- 
teleuton). Numerous blunders arose from the simi- 
larity in form of many of the letters in the modern 
or square Hebrew alphabet, made use of by the 
Massoretes. Such blunders, in most cases, were ear.ily 
corrected by the comparison of MSS., and by due 
attention to the Massoretic notes. But the Massorah 
itself has been discovered to be by no means uniform; 
and notwithstanding the herculean efforts of the early 
scholars, such as the Buxtorfs and others, we are only 
now beginning to approximate to a correct Massoretic 
text. 

The Massorah (see chap, v.) is a work for which 
Biblical students must ever be grateful. The task 
undertaken by those early Hebrew scholars was per- 
formed with the greatest conscientiousness. This fact 
is abundantly proved even by the errors left in many 
cases uncorrected in the text, though corrected in the 
margin. A Biblical critic cannot, however, admit 
the infallibility of the Massoretes, however greatly 
he may respect their learning. 

3. It must not be forgotten that the Hebrew 
Scriptures passed through serious vicissitudes. In 
the persecution in the days of Manasseh many copies 



16 THE STATE OF THE HEBREW TEXT 

of the Holy Scriptures were probably destroyed. In 
the time of the prophet Hosea, while altars, contrary 
to the Mosaic I^aw, were multiplied in the northern 
kingdom, the written Scriptures were comparatively 
unknown (Hos. viii. 12). When the temple and its 
treasures were destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, and the 
people carried off into captivity, innumerable copies 
of the sacred Scriptures, and of other J ewish writings, 
necessarily perished. In the days of Antiochus 
Epiphanes special search was made everywhere for 
copies of the Law, in order to destroy all such Scrip- 
tures (1 Mace. i. 56-58). Similar occurrences took 
place when Jerusalem was captured by Titus, and in 
the horrors that followed. The copy of the Law 
brought to Rome by Titus, which was probably the 
official copy in use in the temple, has unfortunately 
perished. At the close of the great rebellion under 
Bar Cochba thousands of Jewish scholars perished, 
and their books were burned with fire. In the auto- 
da-fes of professedly Christian days many precious 
Hebrew MSS. were ruthlessly destroyed. 

It is not strange, therefore, that the present Hebrew 
text should be found in many places corrupt. The 
wonder is rather that the Hebrew Scriptures should 
have been preserved in any form whatever. The 
memories of faithful disciples must have in many 
cases been had recourse to in order to fill up gaps in 
the sacred text. The comparative uniformity of the 
^assoretic Hebrew MSS. is, as has been noted, no 
proof of the correctness of the Massoretic text. 

4. But it must also be borne in mind that the 
earlier books of the Hebrew Scriptures, when com- 



AND THE HEBREW MSS. 17 

mitted to writing, were written in characters very 
different in form from those in use in later days. 
The oldest extant Hebrew alphabet is that exhibited 
on the Moabite stone and in the Siloam inscription. 
The former monument cannot .be much later than 
the days of the great Elijah, the latter is not 
considerably later. The Hebrew character exhibited 
in both was in common use for centuries afterwards. 
It is substantially the same as that found on the 
Maccabee coins. It was only by slow degrees that 
the more modern square or Aramaic character 
came into use. The Samaritan alphabet is the 
ancient character in a more ornamental form. How- 
ever strange the fact may be, it is certain that 
the Samaritans preserved the older alphabet, while 
the Jews adopted the more modern. The mutual 
hatred between Jews and Samaritans may have been 
one of the causes which led the Jewish scribes after 
the Captivity to adopt the Aramaic character for their 
sacred writings, although the old characters were still 
used for profane purposes on coins and inscriptions. 

This change of the Hebrew alphabet took place 
long prior to the Christian era, and even prior to 
execution of the LXX. version. It is probable it 
met with much opposition, and was not acquiesced 
in for a considerable period. Traces of such oppo- 
sition may be discovered even in post-Christian times. 
The Talmud speaks of the square characters as 
"Assyrian" (Sanhedrin, 216), and directs the Law 
to be written in that character (Zebach., 62 a). It 
recognises thus the novelty of the new alphabet, 
although the fact was afterwards generally forgotten, 

% 



18 THE STATE OF THE HEBREW TEXT 

and the square character asserted to be the more 
ancient. 

In the transliteration of the sacred books from one 
character to another, it is certain that many blunders 
must have occurred. The vowel-letters (^HN), which, 
in the earlier method of writing, were used sparingly, 
were introduced more extensively at later periods, in 
order to assist in fixing the correct sound of words. 
Tb"> invention of a complete system of vowel-points 
and accents, valuable as it was, was centuries later 
than the Christian era (see chap. iv.). 

5. The existing Hebrew MSS. are of various kinds: 
(1) The unpointed synagogue rolls, which are usually 
of parchment, or in the East, of leather. These contain 
the Pentateuch, and the five Megilloth (technically 
Rolls), viz. Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, 
Ecclesiastes, and Esther. (2) Pointed MSS., which 
are generally in book form, and are written both on 
parchment and paper. Most of these contain the 
Massorah, more or less complete. Some MSS. have 
also the Targum, which is occasionally written in 
parallel columns; but in many cases the verses of 
the Targum are written alternately with those of 
the Hebrew. Hebrew MSS. are classified according 
to their country and characteristic readings. Accord- 
ing to most scholars, the present Hebrew MSS. are 
considered to be more or less correct copies of one 
pattern codex. But that view is not universally 
accepted. The vowel-points and accents have as yet 
been very partially collated. The varieties of read- 
ing, too, presented in the Talmud have not yet been 
scientifically collated. 



AND THE HEBREW MSS. 19 

6. The Samaritan MSS. of the Pentateuch ma/ 
also be regarded to all intents and purposes as 
Hebrew MSS. They present, indeed, in many respects 
a different text, and much fruit was at one time 
expected from their collation. Unfortunately they 
have proved to be of comparatively little importance 
for critical purposes. The text they present is, on 
the whole, not earlier than the Hebrew, and has 
been seriously tampered with for theological and 
polemical purposes. But the Samaritan recension 
is by no means worthless. It is of real importance 
when it is supported by the authority of the LXX. 
and the Targums. 

Strack in his Prolegomena has given a description of some 
of the ancient Hebrew MSS. See also the Prefaces to Baer 
and Delitzsch's editions of Hebrew Texts noted ch. ii. 5. 
Strack, in the Zeitsclirift fur Lutli. Theol., 1875, p. -598 ff. 
Harkavy has described some remarkable fragments of MSS. 
from Ehodes, written in a peculiar alphabet, in Me moires de 
V Academic Imp. de St. Petersburg, Ser. vii., Tom. xxxii., 1881, 
No. 8. See also Derenbourg in the Revue des jfitudes Juive.t 
x, 311, and Harkavy, Catalog der Samar. Pent Codices, 
1874. On the Samaritan codex itself, which is simply Hebrew 
written in the more ancient or Samaritan characters, see 
Gesenius, Be Pent. Sam. orig. indole et auctorit. comm. pltil. 
crit., 1815. All the Samaritan MSS. present more or less 
correctly the same recension. The MS. at Nablous, though 
unquestionably ancient, presents a text inferior in almost all 
points to the Massoretic. See more in chap. vi. 

7. The oldest extant Hebrew MS., the date of 
which can be affirmed with certainty, is the MS. of 
the Prophets, punctuated after the Babylonian system. 
The MS. was brought from the Crimea by the dis- 



20 THE STATE OF THE HEBREW TEXT 

tinguished Karaite scholar, A. Firkowitsch, and is 
dated a.d. 916. It is now in the Imperial Library 
of St. Petersburg. The MS. has been edited in 
facsimile by H. L. Strack, Proph. Posterior. Codex 
Babylonicus Petropolitanus, St. Petersburg, 1876, and 
a separate edition, also in facsimile, of Hosea et Joel 
prophetce was edited by the same scholar, Leipzig, 

1875. The oldest MS. of the entire Old Testament 
belonged also formerly to Firkowitsch's collection, 
and is dated a.d. 1010. 

Owing to the numerous falsifications which Fir- 
kowitsch introduced into the ancient epigraphs in 
his most valuable collection of MSS., with the object 
of showing the superiority of the MSS. preserved by 
the Karaites over those of the Rabbinical Jews, the 
epigraphs in question have been deprived of nearly 
all their value, although Chwolson still maintains 
some of them to be genuine. 

The fabrications in question have been discussed by Harkavy 
in the Memoires de VAcad, de St. Petersburg, vii., 24, No. 1 ; 
by H. L. Strack in his A. Firkowitsch u. seine Entdeckungen, 

1876, in the Studien u. Xritike?i, 1876, as well as in the Zeit- 
schrift der D. M. 6?., xxxiv., 163 ff. ; the Liter ar. Centralblatt 
for 1883, col. 878 ; and by Chwolson in his Corpus Inscript. 
Heb., 1882. 

There are other ancient Hebrew MSS., but not of 
hoar antiquity. The epigraph in a Cambridge MS., 
which makes it to have been written in 856, is 
also a manifest fabrication. The epigraph in the 
Aleppo codex (the antiquity of which MS. was as- 
signed to the beginning of the tenth century), which 
was thought to be genuine by eminent scholars, is 



AND THE HEBREW MSS. 21 

now maintained by Wickes, from internal evidence, 
to be likewise a fabrication. See W. Wickes, Treatise 
on the Accentuation of the Twenty-one so-called Prose 
Boohs of the Old Testament, 1887, and on the whole 
subject the Introduction to Professor Driver's Notes 
on the Hebrew Text of the Boohs of Samuel, 1890. 
The Cairo codex of the Prophets is dated 897, and 
there is another Cairo MS. of 1028. 

8. Apart, too, from the circumstances mentioned 
above, the paucity of really ancient Hebrew MSS. 
has been also to a large extent caused by the ancient 
practice of the Jews to bury all sacred MSS. which 
were found to be either defective through wear, or 
otherwise discovered to be faulty. The practice of 
nPJJ, or burial, of such MSS., is often alluded to in 
the Talmud. See specially the Masechet Sopherim 
(edited by Dr. Joel Miiller, 1878), v. 14, 15; Strack, 
Proleg. Critica in V. T. Heb., 1873, p. 42. The latter 
work, now out of print, ought to be in the hands of 
every student, as containing a considerable amount 
of information on subjects which here can only be 
glanced at, and many of which must, indeed, be 
omitted ; Prof. Strack is preparing a new work on the 
subject. Important articles on the Hebrew text, by 
Rev. Professor T. K. Abbott, Dublin, have appeared 
in the Church Quarterly Review : " The Massoretic 
Text of the Old Testament," April, 1887, and "The 
Hebrew Text before the Massoretes," April, 1889; 
and it is to be hoped that those articles may be 
reprinted in a separate form (see chap. v.). 

Useful for popular purposes, as containing a good deal of 
information, is The Old Documents and the New Bible, an easy 



22 THE STATE OF THE HEBREW TEXT. 

lesson for the people in Biblical Criticism. By J. Paterson 
Smyth, LL.B., B.D. : Bagster, 1890. The facsimile plates are 
specially good. 

Important for students are : R. Hoeming, British Museum 
Karaite MSS. Description and Collation of six Karaite 
Manuscripts of portions of the Hebrew Bible in Arabic 
characters ; with a complete reproduction by the autotype 
process of one, Ex. i. 1 to viii. 5, in 42 facsimiles : Williams 
and Norgate, 1889. D. Clvwolson, Corpus Inscriptionum 
Hebraicarum enthaltend Grabschxiften aus der Krim . . . sowie 
auch Schriftproben aus Handschrif ten von ix.-xv. Jahrhundert. 
Gesamm. u. erlautert, 1882. The Palatograph. Soc. Facsimiles 
of Manuscripts and Inscriptions. Oriental Series, edited by 
Professor William Wright, LL.D., 1875-1S83. Ad. Xeubauer, 
Catalogue of the Hebrew MSS. in the Bodleian Library etc., 
with Forty Facsimiles, Oxford, 1886. 



CHAPTER IV. 
THE HISTORY OF THE HEBREW PUNCTUATION. 

1. A LTHOXJGH much has been written on the 
-£j- question, the history of the origin of the 
vowels and accents affixed to the Massoretic text 
is still obscure. Jerome makes no mention of any 
such signs, nor are they referred to by the Jewish 
scholars of whom mention is made in the Talmuds. 
In the • Talmudic treatises, however, grammatical 
disquisitions are rare, so that the negative evidence 
derived from those sources is not entirely conclusive. 
The invention of the vowel points and accents was 
generally ascribed to Ezra by the Jewish scholars 
of the Middle Ages, and that theory was regarded 
as moderate, because there were then scholars who 
maintained that the invention of the vowels went back 
to the age of Moses, and even to an earlier period. 
The theory of the invention of the points by Ezra has 
been found to rest entirely upon the misunderstanding 
of a passage in the Talmud, 3Iegilla, 3 a. (See J. 
Derenbourg, Manuel du lecteur, edited from a Yemen 
MS. now in Bodleian Library, Oxford, in the Journal 
Asiat., 1870, published separately, Paris, 1871.) The 
modern invention of the points was first taught by 
Elias Levita, in his great work, the Massoreth-ha- 



24 THE HISTORY OF THE 

Massoretti, published in 1538. The publication cf 
that work created a new epocb in Hebrew literature. 
Elias Levita was constantly visited by those eager to 
imbibe some of his learning, and for a time even 
Reuchlin was his pupil. Levita's views, though com- 
bated ably by his learned co-religionist, Azariah de 
Eossi, in 1574-5, gradually prevailed. His opinions 
were presented by Cappellus in a form which Levita 
himself would not have given to them. The view of 
Levita and Cappellus on the point is now universally 
accepted by scholars, although for many generations 
it was assailed by earnest men as wholly subversive 
of the truths of revelation. Compare Dr. John 
Owen's work on the Integrity and Purity of the 
Hebrew and Greek Text, issued in 1659, and his 
comments there on Walton's Prolegomena to the 
London Polyglott. 

2. The student must, however, be on his guard 
against being led astray by the detailed statements 
put forth (as was then believed on good authority) 
by even such scholars as Graetz, Delitzsch, Ginsburg 
(in his edition of Levita's Massoreth-ha-Massoreth, 
pp. 61-63), Kaliscb, Heb. Gram. (Part ii., pp. 63, 64), 
and others, in which the names even of the early 
punctuators are given. Those statements were based 
upon the epigraphs unfortunately proved to have been 
partially forged by Firkowitsch. (See chap. iii. 7.) 
It is tolerably certain that the punctuation of the 
Hebrew text was the work of scholars between the 
sixth and eighth centuries; and it is probable that 
the two systems now extant were preceded by some 
ruder and less perfect method of vocalization, intro- 



HEBREW PUNCTUATION. 25 

dueed for the purpose of assisting beginners in the 
difficult task of reading Hebrew. Wickes, in his 
work on the Hebrew Prose Accents (1887), p. 144, 
has pointed out conclusively that the so-called Baby- 
lonian punctuatioD, which was superlinear, is, though 
an Oriental punctuation, not identical with the Oriental 
punctuation, and he even maintains that it must 
have been later than the usual or Palestinian system. 
See also St rack in the Zeitschrift f. Luth. TheoL, 
1877, p. 21. 

3. The vowel-points in Arabic were, like those in 
Hebrew, a very modern invention, and their intro- 
duction into the Koran was at first opposed. (See on 
the Arabic points, Noldeke, Gesch. des Qordns, p. 309.) 
In Syriac different stages of punctuation can be 
distinctly traced, for there are : (1) wholly unpointed 
texts; (2) texts marked with diacritic signs, which, 
though not marking all the vowels, afford material 
help to the reader; and (3) texts vocalized with either 
Greek or Syriac vowels. But such successive stages in 
Hebrew have not yet been discovered in extant MSS. 

4. When the Palestinian system of punctuation 
was finally adopted by the Rabbinites, it is highly pro- 
bable that the punctuation known as the Babylonian 
was in many cases obliterated. The punctuation in 
MSS. seems to have been often added by a different 
hand, or possibly by the same scribe at a different 
sitting. 

Upon the whole of this subject the student should consult 
Dr. C. D. Ginsburg's valuable edition of The Massoretli-lw. 
Manor etli of Elias Levita in Hebrew and English, with 
critical and explanatory notes, and a life of Elias Levita, 1867, 



26 THE HISTORY OF THE 

as also the same scholars edition in English of Jacob ben 
Chajim'x Introduction to the Rabbinical Bible, 2nd edition, 
1867. Buxtorf's Tiberias sire Comm. Masoreticns Triplex, 
1620, last edition 1665. Leusden's Philologus Ilebravs, 
1739. Hansen, Interpretatio Masorce magna textualis, 
Kjobenhavn, 1733-1737. Wickes has some judicious remarks 
on the subject in his work on the Hebrew Prose Accents 
(1887), pp. 5-8, and Professor Driver's Introduction in his 
Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Boohs of Samuel, 1890, is 
indispensable for the English student. Harris' articles in the 
Jewish Quarterly Review, 1889 (see p. 34), give a useful 
summary of the history. See Strack, Die biblisch. u. massortt. 
Hand schrif ten in Tschvfuthale in the Zeitschrift f. luth. 
Tlieol., 1875. 

5. The vagaries of the short-lived Hutchinsonian 
school, including among others the lexicographer 
Parkhurst — still strangely viewed in some quarters 
in England as an authority — need not be more than 
referred to. Independently of those who actually 
followed the follies of Hutchinson, and sought to 
invent a new Hebrew language for themselves, there 
were many able scholars, such as Lowth, Blayney, 
Horsley, and others, who had often recourse to the 
wildest conjectures in the way of emendation of the 
Massoretic text, and whose proposed emendations ran in 
many instances entirely counter to the now ascertained 
principles of Hebrew grammar and syntax. However 
far we may be from affirming the infallibility of the 
Massoretic text and punctuation, the vowel points, 
and even the accents affixed by the Massoretes, are 
not only valuable as preserving to us the traditional 
leading of the ancient text, but are also equally valu- 
able as preserving the true grammatical inflexions of 
the Hebrew. Although the ancient Versions are of 



HEBREW PUNCTUATION. 27 

importance in the correction of the Hebrew text, 
yet on the whole the latter has been preserved by 
the Massoretes in a far more correct form than 
exhibited in any ancient version whatever; and the 
charges often so recklessly made as to the wilful 
perversions of the sacred text by the Jewish scholars, 
when examined into, rest upon no solid basis. 

6. The two systems of punctuation extant in Hebrew 
are: (1) The elaborate system exhibited in all the 
printed Hebrew Bibles, which was brought to its 
present perfection by the scholars of Tiberias, and is 
now known as the Palestinian system. In this system 
the vowels and accents are placed partly above and 
partly below the consonants to which they belong, 
special accentual signs not found elsewhere being made 
use of in the Books of the Psalms, Proverbs and Job. 
(2) The existence of the less perfect Babylonian or 
Assyrian system of punctuation was first made known 
to scholars in 1840, and was more fully described in 
Pinner's Prospectus of the Odessa MSS., 1845. In 
the Babylonian system, which is generally considered 
older than that of Tiberias — though Wickes, as already 
noted, has given strong reasons against that opinion — 
the vowel signs and accents are almost uniformly 
placed above the consonants. The Babylonian vowel 
signs have been proved to be rude modifications 
of the three vowel-letters, N, 1, >, the initial letters 
of the names of the several accents being made use 
of as signs to indicate those accents. A large number 
of Hebrew MSS. have lately been brought from the 
East in which this punctuation is still preserved, and 
it is highly probable that in not a few MSS. the 



23 THE HISTORY OF THE 

Babylonian punctuation has been washed out, and 
the Palestinian substituted. 

Strack's magnificent Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus, and 
his edition of Hosca and Joel (see ch. iii. 7), are the best 
specimens of Hebrew texts furnished with these points. A 
beautifully printed Chaldee or Aramaic text, pointed after 
the Babylonian system, is exhibited in Merx's Chrestomathia 
Targumica, 1888, which contains also a list of Babylonian 
MSS., and for cheapness and accuracy may well be commended 
to all students. The full title is : direst. Targumica quam 
collate libb. MSS. antiq. Tib. editionibusque impressis celeb, 
ad codices vocalibus Babylonicis instructos, edid. adn. crit. et 
gloss, instruxit Ad. Merx. See also ch. v. 4. 

7. It may be well to notice : Gesenius, Gesch. der hebr. Spr. 
und Schrift, 1815. Steinschneider, Bihliogr. Handb. iiber 
die theor. u. praht. Literatur fur hebr. Sprachhunde, 1859. 
Gesenius, Thesaurus phil.-crit. ling. Ileb. et Cliald., 3 vols, 
4to, last part of 3rd vol. by Rodiger, 1835-1858, is still a 
veritable treasure-house of Biblical learning. Of Gesenius' 
Heb. und Chald. Handworterb, the 9th and subsequent editions 
have been neu bearbeitet von F. Miihlau u. W. Volck, 1883 to 
1890. While this manual Lex. of Gesenius has been improved 
in every successive edition, no English translation has appeared 
since that of Tregelles, published by Bagster in 1853. Hence 
in many respects B. Davies' Student's Heb. Lex., 1872, is more 
useful for English students unacquainted with German. 
J. Fiirst, Heb. und Chald. Handworterb. is of importance, 
though not equal to Gesenius. The 3rd edition by V. Byssel, 
appeared in 1876. A 4th edition of an English translation of 
the 2nd German by S. Davidson in 1871, which is fuller and 
more accurate than Fiirst, Fried. Delitzsch's Proleg. eines 
neuen Heb.- Aram disch. W.B. z. A.T. is important. 

Buxtorf, Heb. et Chald. Concordantia appeared in 1632 in 
folio. An improved edition by B. Bar in 1867. J. Fiirst, 
Concord. Heb. at que Chald., in fol., 1840, much improved, but 
with fanciful etymologies. C. Noldii, Concord, particularum 
ebrceo-chald. issued in 1679, recens. J. G. Tympius in 1734, is 



HEBREW PUNCTUATION. 20 

still the only available work in that department. An English 
edition of Buxtorf 's Concordance was issued by B. Davidson 
in 1876. The Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance, 
2nd edit., 1860, deserves mention, as also The Hebraist's Vade 
Mecum, 1867, both published by Bagster. Dr. S. Mandelkern, 
of Leipzig, has issued a prospectus of Die neubearbeitete Heb.- 
Chald. Bibel Concordant, likely to surpass its predecessors. 

In grammar, it is only necessary to mention : Gesenius, 
Ausfiihrl. gram.-hrit. Lehrgeb'iude, 1817. His smaller Heb. 
gramm., first issued in 1813, passed through many editions 
under its author's eye, and afterwards as edited by Kodiger. 
The 22nd and subsequent editions by E. Kautzsch have been 
entirely rewritten, the 25th in 1889 much improved. The 
American scholar E. C. Mitchell has issued B. Davies' trans- 
lation "thoroughly revised" in 1880. Ewald's Lehrbuch first 
appeared in 1827, the 8th edition in 1870. Most important 
for English students is the Syntax of this work translated by 
Jas. Kennedy : T. and T. Clark, 1879. Kennedy has also pub- 
lished his own Introd. to Bib. Hebrew, presenting graduated 
instruction,. 1889. J. Olshausen, Lehrbuch, published in 1861 
is valuable, though the author died without writing the Syntax. 
Olshausen's work touches upon compar. Semitic grammar. 
Prof. W. Robertson Smith has just published the late Prof. 
W. Wright's Lectures on Comparative Semitic Grammar, 
Camb. Univ. Press, 1890. In Italian, Luzzatto's grammatical 
works are most important, 1853-69. Bdttcher's Ausfiihrl. 
Lehrb., issued in two royal 8vo vols., 1866, 1868 (embracing 
over 1,300 pp.), is a great grammatical concordance. The 
author died ere he reached the Syntax. Important are : F. E. 
Kbnig, Hist.-krit. Lehrgeb.. 1881 (first half). B. Stade, Lehrb. 
(first half), 1879. In English, A. B. Davidson wrote a valuable 
±ntrod. Heb. Grammar, and frequently reprinted, 1876. The 
following are by American scholais, W. H. Green, Grammar, 
4th edit., Parti., 1888 ; Part ii., Syntax, 1889. W. R. Harper, 
Elements of Hebrew by inductive method, 10th edit., 1889. 
Elements of Syntax, 1888 ; Tntrod. Heb. Method and Manual, 
4th edit., a book of useful exercises. 1888. Most important is 
Driver's Hebrew Tenses, 2nd edit., 1881. H. L. Strack's useful 



30 HISTORY OF THE HEBREW PUNCTUA TIOX. 

small He b. Grammar, 4th enlarged edit., 1891, with Exercises, 
translated by A. R. S. Kennedy, is to be had both in German 
and English. Strack and Siegfried's Lekrb. der ntuheb. 
Spravhe und Litt. 1884, deserves to be better known. A. B. 
Davidson's Outlines of Heb. Accentuation appeared in 1851, 
but the accents of the Hebrew are best treated by W. Wickes, 
the Poetical, 1881. the Prose in 1887, both published by the 
Clarendon Press, Oxford. I. Nordheimer's Heb. Gram., 2 vols., 
appeared in New York, 183S, 1841 ; 2nd edit., 1842. G. 
Bickell's Outlines of Heb. Grammar, trans, by 8. I. Curtiss, 
Leipzig, 1877, is a small but scientific work. Dot elementary. 
Many important articles on Hebrew grammar have appeared 
from time to time in Professor Harper's Hebraica. The 
Syntax of Aug. Miiller's useful Scintigram mat ik has been 
recently edited in English by Prof. Robertson, of Glasgow, 
under the title Outlines of Hebrew Syntax, 2nd edit.. 1887. 



CHAPTER V. 

THE JEWISH MASS0RAI1. 

1. T I THE elaborate care taken by the Jews for 
-L the preservation of the true text of their 
sacred books has already been noticed. But such efforts 
cannot be traced back further than several centuries 
posterior to the Christian era. Although Philo as- 
serts that "the Jews never altered a word of what 
was written by Moses," and Josephus maintains that 
nothing was added to the text of Scripture or taken 
therefrom, such statements cannot be regarded as 
absolutely true, because it is certain that additions 
and glosses were from time to time added to the 
various books. Moreover the assertions of Philo and 
Josephus are opposed to the facts disclosed by an 
examination of the LXX. and of the other Versions. 
There is, however, no ground for accusing the Jews 
of wilfully corrupting the sacred text, an accusation 
constantly preferred against them by the Church 
Fathers, as well as by later writers. The care taken 
by the Jews in post-Christian days to preserve intact 
the books committed to them, led to the execution 
of the work generally designated under the name 
of the Massorah. 

2. The expression H"jbD (or less correctly H1DO, 



32 THE JEWISH MASSORAH. 

from "©»), Bibl. Hebrew ITIDO, Massorah, denotes 
M tradition, 1 ' and specially the tradition connected 
with the correct reading of the sacred text. It is 
incorrect to regard it as a deriv. of 1DN, meaning 
bond, vinculum. Under the name is often included 
(1) the vowel points and accents, and (2) more cor- 
rectly the critical notes affixed to the Hebrew MSS. 
The latter recount the number of times certain rare 
words or combinations of words occur, and call 
attention to divers peculiarities. The short Massorah 
is often divided into various heads: the short notes 
written on the margin of MSS., or of the large Kab- 
binic Bibles, are known as the Massora marginalis, 
which is an abridgment of the Massora magna, 
which latter was written above or below the text, 
and often in MSS. in all sorts of grotesque forms. 
The Massora parva is written on the sides of the 
margins and between the columns, and contains 
divers notes on words and sentences which occur 
only once, or on various peculiarities in vowel points 
or consonants, which are noted by mnemonical signs. 
Larger notes are sometimes found at the end of the 
MS., and thus designated the Massora finalis. These 
Massoretic notes are by no means uniform, and are 
not unfrequently opposed to one another. Ginsburg's 
notes give abundant instances of differences between 
the Massorah as quoted by Levita, and as found 
elsewhere. 

3. The town of Tiberias on the Lake of Capernaum 
was the chief seat of Jewish learning, where Mas- 
soretic studies were pursued. After the return from 
Exile it is likely that there were scribes devote^ 



THE JEWISH MASSORAH. 33 

to the work of preserving and copying the Sacred 
Scriptures. Such duties probably formed part of 
the work of "the scribes " so often alluded to in 
the New Testament. The overthrow of the Jewish 
state by the Romans put an end to all such arrange- 
ments, and it is impossible to tell on what authority 
the statements rest which are made in the Talmud 
as to the work of the earlier scribes. R. Judah the 
Holy (a.d. 200) committed to writing the Mishna, 
in order to preserve from utter destruction that 
great body of oral law, which had hitherto been 
handed down for centuries solely by word of mouth. 
In the fourth century it was further found necessary 
to commit to writing the Gemara, or commentary 
on the Mishna, parts of which are as old, and even 
occasionally older than the Mishna itself. It was 
several centuries after the Christian era ere the 
Jewish scholars became reconciled to the practice of 
committing anything to writing except the Scriptures 
themselves. Their laws, traditions, and expositions 
were all handed down orally. Hence it is not 
surprising that no written records exist detailing the 
work of the Massoretic scholars. See Bloch, Studien 
zur Gesch. der heb. Lit., p. 120 ff., and my Koheleth, 
Excursus iii., p. 484. See Appendix, 

4. Ben Asher, who lived in the tenth century, and 
whose family lived at Tiberias in the eighth century, is 
said to have left behind him a Hebrew codex, affirmed 
to have been the main source from whence the present 
Massoretic text is derived. Ben Naphtali somewhat 
earlier wrote also a model codex of the Hebrew Bible. 
A few scanty remains exist of the differences between 

3 



34 THE JEWISH MASSORAH. 

the readings of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali. Some 
of these affect the consonants of the text, such as 
Ter. xi. 7, where Ben Naphtali reads "IV for -Jin ; 
Jer. xxix. 22, where he reads vn&OI for nnxrn 
Most of them, however, only affect the punctuation. 

See Strack's Prolegomena. Baer and Strack, Dikduke 
hatteamim, 1879. Berliner, Targ. Onkelos, 1884; ii. 139« 
On the Babylonian punctuation, in addition to works already 
mentioned in ch. iv. 6, see Pinsker, Einfuhrvng in d. Balyl. 
Heb. Punetationsystem, 1863 ; Graetz, Monatschrift, 1881. 

The history of the Massorah in general, in addition to the 
works mentioned in ch. iii. 6, 8 ; iv. 5, is treated by Geiger in 
his Jildische Zeitschrift, iii, 78 pp., and in his JJrschrift und 
Uebersetzungen der Bibel, 1857 \ by Strack in the Prot. 
Realencycl., 2nd edition, ix., 388 ff. See also the Sefer Tora 
printed in Kirchheim's VII Libri Talm. parvi Hierosol., 1851 ; 
Miiller, Masccliet Sofcrim, 1878. Frensdorf, Das Buck Ochla 
%d ochla, 1S64 ; his Massora Magna, 1876, is unfortunately 
unfinished. Ginsburg's great folio work, The Massorah — com- 
piled frotn 3ISS. alphabetically and lexically arranged, is not 
yet completed, although vol. i. appeared in 1880, vol. ii. com- 
pleting the Massorah in 1883, and a supplementary vol. to vol. 
iii. in 18S5. Vol. iii. itself has not yet appeared, but is partly in 
the press, and likely to appear in a year or so. S. Baer is publish- 
ing an amended Massoretic text in the Rabbinical Bible, Mikra 
tfadhol, Wilna. See also two very able articles on " The Rise 
and Development of the Massorah," by Rev. I. Harris, M.A. y in 
the JeicishQuarterly Review J&n.a,ndA\)ril,18S9. See Appendix. 

5. The object of the Massoretic scholars was, as 
far as possible, to preserve the text as they received 
it. They did not venture to correct the text, even 
in places where its blunders were most distinctly 
ascertained. But although they thus preserved in 
many places inferior readings in the text, noting it 



THE JEWISH MASSORAH. 35 

fts TfD, written (Kethibh), they introduced into the 
margin what they would have substituted in their 
place, as i^p, read (K're or Q're, see App.). In all 
these cases, without exception, it must be remem- 
bered the word that stands in the text is regarded 
as left absolutely unpointed, the vowel points and 
accents belonging only to that found in the margin. 
It should be noted that several of these K're readings 
are often mentioned in the Talmud, and that therefore 
a portion at least of those notes belong to a period 
prior to the invention of the Hebrew vowel points. 

Of the K're notes as found in the present Hebrew 
Bible there are various kinds. Sometimes (1) vowejs 
and accents are written without any consonants, the 
consonants to which they belong being given in the 
margin. See 2 Sam. viii. 2, xvi. 23 ; Jer. xxxi. 38. 
(2) Consonants stand in the text without vowels, the 
word so marked being in the margin directed to be 
passed over entirely. See Jer. li. 3 ; Ezek. xlviii. 16 ; 
Ruth iii. 12. (3) Sometimes the K're directs what 
is written in the text as one word to be divided into 
two, e.g. Ps. x. 10, D^rAn is to be read CXD hn. 
(4) In other cases two words are directed to be read 
as one, e.g. WiV *D in Lam. iv. 3 as D*3tf)3. (5) There 
are words whose last letter belongs to the following 
word, e.g. 2 Sam. v. 2, in n^1D nn\1 ; 2 Sam. xxi. 
12, where DTIS^B HES? must be read, instead of 
D^n^SH DK>. (6) Euphemistic expressions were 
directed to be substituted in reading for the coarser 
expressions which occur in the original. 

It is important to observe that there are wordg 
to which a K're perpetuum is always to be supplied. 



36 THE JEWISH MASSORAH. 

E.g. Wn, feni., in the Pentateuch, is intended always 
to be read K^. The letters may also be read Nin, but 
in no case is it to be pronounced as printed. Similarly, 
miT was never intended to be pronounced Jehovah, 
which is not Hebrew. The name is written indeed 
rniT, but the vowels are those of *XWt, Lord, which 
is directed to be read instead. When the combina- 
tion " the Lord Jehovah " occurs, in which the word 
ST£ precedes mrv, the vowels of BVpg, God, are then 
substituted, and mrp is vocalised Hin* as the name 
E^'.^. is to be read in its place. This unwillingness 
to pronounce the sacred name, the true vocalisation of 
which is probably n .)D,., or rwj!, is at least as old as 
the LXX. version, in which Kvpios is always sub- 
stituted for it (see chap. viii.. 8), and the same usage 
has been retained in the English versions, where Lord 
or God, as the case may be, printed in small capitals 
stands for Jahaveh or Jah veh . Instances of the former 
occur everywhere in the English versions; more rarely 
the latter, see Isa. lxi. 11. On the name see Driver, 
" Recent Theories on the Origin and Nature of the 
Tetragrammaton," in Studia Biblica, Oxford, 1885. 

6. The division of the Law into various sections 
known as Parashoth (lltena), divisions (or rri 4 ~H2) ? to 
which other sections from the Prophets termed Haph- 
taroth (nnpDH) corresponded, was the work of the 
same scholars, or at least was finally fixed by them. 
These larger sections are denoted by £££, or by ^2, 
indicating that under such divisions several minor 
sections are included, which are designated by single 
letters. A list of the Haphtaroth of the Prophets 
corresponding to the Parashoth of the Law, is generally 



THE JEWISH MASSORAH. 37 

found at the close of the Hebrew Bible. The sections 
of the Law or Pentateuch were originally one hundred 
and fifty-four, designed for a three years' course of 
reading. In the present Hebrew Bibles they are fifty- 
four in number, arranged for a yearly cycle. These 
larger sections are subdivided into smaller, designated 
mmriB, "open" and marked with single Q, or with a 
single D (nilDtflD, "closed"), the differences between 
the two having reference mainly, though perhaps not 
exclusively, to the calligraphy of the text, are by 
no means strictly observed in the printed Hebrew 
Bibles. The open sections are chief divisions, the 
closed generally subdivisions. But there were other 
differences also indicated by such sections. The verse 
division was a later introduction of the same scholars. 
7. A considerable number of other points connected 
with the Massorah must be here passed over in 
silence. The labour undergone in the numbering of 
the letters and the notation of the middle letters 
and middle words in each book subserved no useful 
purpose. It did not preserve the text from cor- 
ruption. The Massoretic lists of parallel passages 
and peculiarities are, on the other hand, important. 
The use of liter ce majusculce (as in Gen. xxxiv. 31), 
minusculce {e.g. Gen. ii. 4), suspensce (Judg. xviii. 30), 
inversce (Num. x. 35, 36), with many other pecu- 
liarities of a similar nature, were designed for critical 
purposes of various kinds, which in some cases have 
been discovered, while in other cases their real signifi- 
cance has been hopelessly lost. The puerilities about 
these matters mentioned by Buxtorf in his Tiberias, 
are in many cases mere "conceits" of a later age. 



38 THE JEWISH MASSORAH. 

The puncta extraordinaria, which are of far older date 
than the Massoretic period, have been in some cases 
explained as simple signs of correction on the part of 
the scribes. There is much to be said in favour of 
this view. For similar points occur in Samaritan 
MSS. with that signification, and some of the words 
so pointed in Hebrew MSS. are omitted in the ancient 
versions. But although some such use was subserved 
by those dots, the explanation cannot yet be abso- 
lutely accepted. For it must be observed that MSS. 
are by no means uniform in that particular, the 
puncta extraordinaria occurring more frequently in 
some MSS. than in others. Strack's Proleg. Crit. in 
Vet. Test. Heb., 1873, which gives much information 
on such points, ought to be in the hands of every 
Biblical student. 

8. The order of the various Books seems to have 
been finally settled by the Massoretes. The Hebrew 
Bible is divided into three parts: (1) The Tor ah, 
" Law " or Pentateuch. (2) The Prophets, divided 
into two, (a) the former, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, 
Kings ; (b) the later, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, with 
the twelve Minor Prophets. (3) The Kethubim, or 
the " Writings" generally termed the Hagiographa, 
viz. Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the five Megilloth or 
Rolls (i.e. Canticles, Buth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, 
and Esther), Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. 
The order of the Books in the English Bible is that 
of the Latin Vulgate, with the Apocryphal Books 
excluded. The Massorah reckons the Books as 
twenty-four, the two books of Samuel, Kings, and 
Chronicles being counted as single books ; the twelve 



THE JEWISH MASSORAH. 39 

Minor Prophets are reckoned as one book, and 
Ezra and Nehemiah are also regarded as forming 
together one book. The English Bible regards the 
books as thirty-nine. Josephus and the Alexandrine 
writers reckon only twenty-two, Ruth with Judges 
being counted as one, and Lamentations being in- 
cluded in Jeremiah. The arrangement in the Talmud 
(Baba Bathra, 146) is: — Law; Prophets, i.e. Joshua, 
Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, 
and the Twelve ; Writings, i.e. Ruth, Psalms, Job, 
Proverbs, Koheleth, Canticles, Lamentations, Daniel, 
Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles. But the latter 
order is of very doubtful authority. See Bloch, 
Studien; Wright, Koheleth, Excurs. i. The size of 
the respective books, as ascertained by the pages 
actually occupied by each, was evidently the principle 
which determined the order in which the books of the 
Prophets were placed according to this arrangement. 



CHAPTER VI. 



THE TAR GUMS. 



1. ri THE intercourse — sometimes of a friendly, and 
-L more often of a hostile character — which 
from the earliest times took place between Israel and 
their Aramaic-speaking neighbours, caused Aramaic 
to be generally understood, not only by members of 
the tribes belonging to the northern kingdom, but 
also by the higher classes belonging to the southern 
kingdom (Isa. xxxvi. 11, etc.). The Western Aramaic 
gradually became more general among the Israelites 
after the Exile, although the Israelites did not learn, 
as is often supposed that language in Babylon. 
Western Aramaic was, indeed, incorrectly termed 
" Chaldee," through a misconception of Dan. i. 4 
with ii. 4. Jerome popularised the mistake, which 
he no doubt imbibed from his Jewish teachers ; and 
accordingly many, from his days onward, have sup- 
posed that the astrologers (or Chaldseans) at the court 
of Nebuchadnezzar addressed that king in Aramaic, 
which was sometimes regarded as having been the 
language of Babylonia. See our remarks on the 
Book of Daniel, p. 193. 

2. After the Exile Aramaic became the language 
of trade and commerce in Palestine, and a consider- 



THE TARGUMS. 41 

able number of the Jews after a time were more 
familiar with it than with the sacred tongue. Hence 
the practice arose of accompanying the reading of 
the Scriptures in the synagogues by an interpreta- 
tion in the popular Aramaic. Neh. viii. 8 is often 
incorrectly adduced in proof of this practice. For 
the Jewish theologians of the Middle Ages were 
anxious to cite Scripture authority for all their 
arrangements and institutions, even for those which 
came into existence subsequent to the Persian period, 
just as Christian divines have similarly attempted to 
establish dogmas and practices of latter development 
from passages of the New Testament, which, rightly 
understood, have no such meaning. Luke iv. 17ff. 
is often adduced to prove that the practice of inter- 
preting the Scriptures in Aramaic was at least not 
universal in the time of our Lord. That practice 
may, however, then have been in use in parts of the 
country, and it was firmly established as a general 
custom before the great insurrection in the days of 
Hadrian. The Aramaic paraphrase sometimes adhered 
closely to the original text, but at other times was 
embellished with additions of various kinds. The 
reader of the Law and the Prophets in reading was 
forbidden to add anything to the sacred text, or to 
repeat any text from memory. He was directed when 
reading strictly to keep his eyes on the words. The 
Meturgeman, or Translator, was, on the other hand, 
forbidden to make any use whatever of manuscript 
but was wholly to depend on memory. Comp. J. H. 
Biesenthal, Das Trostschreiben an die Hebraer, Einl., 
cap. v., p. 50 ff. 



42 



THE TARGUMS. 



3. All " interpretations " — and the word Targum 
(D-ISiri) properly signifies such — have a tendency, 
whether more or less literal, in the process of time 
to become uniform. The interpreters among the 
Jews became in time a sort of guild. While, there- 
fore, Bohl has gone too far in maintaining that 
there was in existence in our Lord's time an Aramaic 
translation or paraphrase of the Scriptures, which was 
cited by New Testament writers, it is not improbable 
that large portions of the Scripture in Aramaic were 
early committed to writing. The Talmud (Shabbath, 
115a, towards the end) mentions a written Targum 
on the Book of Job towards the close of the first 
century, in the days of Gamaliel. The antipathy 
of that patriarch to such a work was so great, that 
he ordered it to be buried under the foundations of 
a wall ; and, according to the Jer. Talmud (S/iabbath, 
xvi. 15c), the order was forthwith executed. But if 
a written Targum on Job was extant so early, it is 
only reasonable to suppose that other Targums were 
also in existence. 

4. The theology set forth in the Targums proves, 
as Strack observes, their great antiquity. None, 
however, of the Targums now known are of higher 
antiquity than the third or fourth centuries after 
Christ. But they are based to a large extent upon 
similar works of a much higher antiquity. 

5. The extant Targums are: (1) The Targum of 
0nkelo8 (Dl^pJltf), which is the most literal, and 
comprehends the entire Pentateuch. It is uncertain 
who this Onkelos was, or at what time he lived. 
The Onkelos spoken of in the Talmud as contem- 



THE TARGUMS. 43 

porary with Gamaliel, and whose translations are 
there mentioned, can be identified with Aquila ( D rP^), 
the Greek translator (see p. 60). Geiger is probably 
correct in maintaining that the Targum which 
adhered most literally to the Hebrew text was 
called that of Onkelos, not because it was edited by 
him, but as indicating that it was executed with 
something like the same literality for which Aquila's 
Greek version was remarkable. The name describes 
the nature of the work, and not the author. The 
Targum of Onkelos does not appear to have been 
the work of a single author or editor, but the pro- 
duction of a school. In its present shape it probably 
originated in Babylon, and it has often been questioned 
whether that Targum is as early as the older portions 
of the two Targums next to be mentioned. 

(2) The Targum of Jerusalem, I., embraces the 
Pentateuch, and is commonly known as the Targum 
of Pseudo- Jonathan, owing to the fact that it was 
incorrectly ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel, the pupil 
of Hillel, a mistake which probably arose from an 
incorrect explanation of the abbreviation ' "T\, which 
indicates »B^n* Dinn. In its present form it is 
probably not older than the seventh century. 

(3) The Targum of Jerusalem, II., also termed the 
Fragmentary Targum, embraces only portions of the 
Pentateuch. It is older than the former, and pro- 
bably a production of the Palestinian school. It 
contains more of an Haggadic, i.e. homiletic nature. 
This Targum is often cited in the Jerusalem Talmud 
and in the Midrash Pabba. 

(4) The Targum of Jonathan embraces the Prophets. 



U THE TARGUMS. 

This paraphrase is generally ascribed to Jonathan 
ben Uzziel, who, according to the Babylonian Talmud 
(Megillah, 3a), composed a Targum on the Prophets. 
Passages, however, of this Targum are ascribed in 
the Talmud to a later scholar, R. Joseph bar Chiyyah 
(died 333), who may have revised and re-edited the 
Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel. The name Jonathan 
was a common one. Geiger has conjectured that 
Jonathan is a Hebraised form of Theodotion (see 
chap, viii.), both names being of the same significa- 
tion. In this case the name indicates the manner in 
which the Targum was composed. It is likely that 
this Targum also was the product of a school of 
interpreters, and nob the work of any single author. 

(5) The Targums on the Hagiographa (chap, v., 8) 
were composed by different authors, and are more 
modern. The authors of those paraphrases probably 
worked also on the lines of former translators. No 
Targum is extant on the Books of Ezra, JSTehemiah, 
and Daniel, while there are two Targums on the 
Book of Esther. According to Noldeke, the Targum 
on the Proverbs is a Jewish working-up of the 
Syriac (Peshitto) translation. The same might also 
be affirmed of the Targum on the Psalms, which, 
from its allusions in the rendering of Psalm cviii. 1 1 
to Home and Constantinople as the two capitals of 
the world, has been considered to have been composed 
prior to a.d. 476; while, on the other hand, the 
references to the Hungarians in Psalm lxxxiii. 7 point 
to the ninth century. Such phenomena seem to 
show that the translation of the Psalms was the 
work of very different periods. 



THE TARGUMS. 45 

(6) Besides the above, a few fragments are extant 
of other Targums on the Prophets, which need here 
only be alluded to. 

6. See Noldeke, Die alt-testamentliclie Liter utur, 1868, 
and his articles in Merx' Archiv f. wiss. Erforschnng d. A. T. 
ii., and in the Zeitschrift d. deutsch. Morgenl. Ges., xxii. 
(1868), p. 443 ff. ; Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge, 1832. 
Geiger, Urschrift, 1857 ; Jildische Zeitschrift, 1871, 1874 ; Nach- 
gelassene Schrift. iv. Berliner, Tar gum Onkelos, (2 vols., text 
and notes), 1884 ; also his Massorahzum Targum Onhelos, 1877. 
Seligsohn, Be duabus Hierosol. Pent, paraph., 1859. G-. B. 
Winer, Be Onkeloso ejusq. paraph. Chald., 1820, and his Be 
Jonathanis in Pent, paraph. Chald., 1823, H. Petermann, 
Be duabus Pent, paraph. Chald., 1829. S. D. Luzzatto, 
Philoxenus sive de Onkelosi chald. Pent, vers., 1830. B. Anger, 
Be Onkelo Chald. quern ferunt Pent, paraph, et quid ei 
rationis inter cedat cum Ahila grceco V. T. interpreter 1845, 
1846. S. Gronemann, Bie Jonathanische Pent.-Uebersetzung 
in ihrem Verhaltnisse zur Halaeha, 1879. Sal. Singer, 
Onhelos u. das Verhaltniss seines Targ. zur Halaeha, 1881. 
W. Bacher, on Targ. on Pent, in Zeitschrift d. B. M. G., 
xxviii. (1874), also in same, vol. xxix. (1875); on the Targ. to 
Psalms in Graetz, Monatschrift 1872, and on that on Job in 
Graetz, Monatschrift, 1871. Beis on Targ. to Esther in same 
journal for 1876 and 1881. M. Bosenberg and K. Kohler, 
Bas Targum zur Chronik. , Jildische Zeitschrift, 1870. 

7. The Targums are given in the Babb. Bibles and with 
Latin translations in the Polyglotts (chap. ii. 3). Many 
separate editions have also appeared. Lagarde issued an 
unpointed edit, of Prophet ce Chald aice (Josh. — 2 Kings with 
Isaiah — Mai.), 1872, followed by Hagiographa Chaldaice, 1873. 
For Berliner's Onhelos, see former paragraph. The Targ. on 
Chronicles was first issued by Beck in Augsburg, 1680, after- 
wards by Wilkins, Amsterdam, 1715. The Targ. of Onkelos 
has been often reprinted in a cheap form with the Heb. text 
of the Pent., and Bashi'scomm., e.g. in 5 small vols, Schlesinger, 
Wien, 1878. L. Munk has issued in 1876 the Targum schsni 



46 THE TARGUMS. 

zum B. Esther with various readings and notes. Paulus 
Cassel in Das Biwh Esther, 1878, has given a translation of the 
same. (See under Esther.) The Targ. on Ruth with variants 
is given by C. H. H. Wright. (See under Ruth.) All the 
Targums on the Pent, have been translated into English by 
J. W. Etheridge and published in two thick vols, in 1862 and 
18*5. C. W. H. Pauli has also published an English transla- 
tion of the Targ. on Isaiah, in 1871. A Latin translation of 
the Jerus. Targ. was published by F. Tayler, London, 1649, 
and the same scholar published a similar translation of both 
Targums to the Book of Esther in 1655. 

8. The Aramaic is divided into two branches : (1) the Western, 
which comprehends (a) the Samaritan, (V) the Biblical 
Aramaic, and (e) the Targumic, the two latter being popularly 
though erroneously termed Chaldee, (d) Nabataean, extant in 
numerous inscriptions and coins. (2) The Eastern Aramaic, 
comprehends (a) Syriac, (h) the language of the Babylonian 
Talmud, and (c) Mandaic, spoken in lower Babylonia. Other 
important remains of Aramaic are mentioned by Kautzsch in 
the introduction to his Grammatik des biblisch-Aramdischen, 
1884. The Hebrew student can easily obtain a knowledge of 
Biblical Aramaic through the Chaldaismi Biblici adumbratio 
prefixed to Baer and Delitzsch's ed. of Libri Banielis, Ezrce et 
Neh., 1882. S. D. Luzzatto, Elements of Biol. Chaldee and of 
the dial, of the Talmud was published in Italian in 1865, in 
German 1873, and in English by J. S. Goldammer, 1877. G. B. 
Winer's Gramm. des bibl. und targ. Chald., 2nd edit., 1842 
(edit, by Fischer, 1882), is the basis of Rigg's Chaldee Manual, 
1832, later edit. 1858, and of Longfield's Grammar, etc., 1859. 
The paradigms in the latter unfortunately abound in typo- 
graphical blunders. Turpie's Chald. Manual appeared in 1879. 
J. H. Petermann's, Brcvis ling, chald. gramm. litt. chrestom. 
cum glos., 2nd edit., 1872, is useful. The best grammar for 
Bibl. Chaldee is that of Kautzsch, English transl. by Stenhouse. 
Important is Ad. Merx, Bemerkungen iiber die Vocalisation 
der Targume (Verhandl. des 5 internat. Orient. Congr., ii. 1, 
pp. 142-188). Merx has carried out the principles there indi- 
cated in his Chrest. Targumica, 1888, noticed p. 28. 



THE TARGUMS. 47 

The Lexicons are : J. Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. Talm. et Babb., 
fol., 1639. New reprint with additions by B. Fischer, 2 vols., 
1869 and 1874. Kabb. Dr. J. Levy, Chalddisches Worterbuch 
iiber die Targumim, etc., 2 vols., 1867, 1868, reprint in one vol., 
1881. Most important is J. Levy, Neuheb. et Chald. Worter- 
buch iiber die Talmudim und Midraschim, nebst Beitr'dgen von 
Prof. Dr. H. L. Fleischer, vol. i., 1876 ; vol. ii., 1879 ; vol. iii., 
1883 ; vol. iv., 1889. Useful chrestomathies are : G. B. Winer 
Chald. Lesebuch aus den Targg., 2 Aufl., by J. Fiirst, 1864 ; J. 
Kaerle, Chrest. Targ.-Syr., 1852 (299 pp.), Merx, see p. 28. 
For Talmudic : B. Fischer, Talmud. Chrest omatliie, 268 pp., 
H. L. Strack's useful editt. of PirTte Aboth, 2te Aufl., Berlin, 
H. Keuther, 1888 ; 'Aboda Zara, 1888 ; Joma, 1888 ; Shabbath, 
1890 ; also Geiger, Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der 
Mishnah, 1845 ; Strack and Siegfried, Lehrb. der Neuheb. 
Sprache und Litt., 1884. 

Ed. Bohl's works referred to on p. 42 are : Forschungen nach 
einer Volhsbibel zur Zeit Jesu, Wien, 1873 ; and, as a second 
vol. of that work, Die Alt-testamentlichen Citate im Neuen 
Test, Wien, 1878. 

9. The Samaritan translation of the Pentateuch is 
carefully to be distinguished from the Samaritan 
codex of the Pentateuch noticed before, p. 19. The 
Samaritan codex is simply a Hebrew codex of a 
different recension from the Massoretic, and written 
in the Samaritan character, which, though by no 
means so important as formerly imagined, is still of 
considerable value. But the Samaritan version is in 
reality a Samaritan Targum based on the Samaritan 
codex, and possesses peculiar value. The Fathers of 
the third and fourth centuries speak of a Sa/mpem/coV, 
or Greek translation of this version, which is there- 
fore of considerable antiquity. See Field's Hexapla, i., 
p. lxxxiii. 



48 TEE TARGUMS. 

The best helps to Samaritan are : F.Uhlemann, Institutiones 
ling. Samaritans, 1837, containing an extensive chrestomathy. 
J. H. Petermann, Brevis ling. Sam. gramm. litt. direst, cum 
gl<<ss., 1873. The literature given in the Porta Ling Orient., 
especially as re-edited by Strack, will also be found of 
considerable utility. 

The Sam. version is to be found in the Polyglotts, see 
chap. ii. 3. More modern editions are, Briill, Gesch. u. Lit, 
1876; Das Samaritanisehe Targ.z. Pent., with various readings 
and app., 1875, 1879; Varianten zu Genesis des Sam. Targ., 
1876, both in Hebrew characters. J. W. Nutt, Fragments 
of a Sam. Targum, 1874. J. H. Petermann, Pent. Sam. in 
Samaritan characters : Fasc. i. Gen., 1872 ; ii. Exod., 1882 ; 
iii. Lev.,ed. Vollers, 1883 ; iv. Numb., ex recens. Vollers, 1885. 
Important are : H. Petermann, VersvcJi einer heb. Formenlehre 
nach der Ausspraclxe der heutig. Samaritaner nebst einer dar- 
nach gebild. Transscription der Genesis, und . . . Lesarten 
der Samaritaner, 1868 ; M. Heidenheim, Die Sam. Pent. Vers. 
Genesis in der lieb. Quadratschrift, mit Einl. u. Scholien, 
1884. Kohn, Samaritanisehe Studien, 1868. Also his Zur 
Sprache, Lit. u. Dogmatik, 1876 (reviewed by Noldeke, Zett- 
schrift. d. D. M. G., 1876, p. 343 ff); also in Zeitschrift der 
D. M. G., 1885. Kuenen has published Abu Said's Arabic 
translation, Lib. Gen. sec. Arab. Pent, vers,, 1851 ; Exod. u. 
Lev., 1854. 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE OLD 
TESTAMENT. 

1. npHE oldest Syriac version is that known as 
-L- the Peshitto, Nr»tWB, lA-4 » ■^ i.e. the 
simple, or (as explained by N" estle and Strack) generally 
used version. The term occurs in Syriac Massoretic 
MSS. of the ninth and tenth centuries (Noldehe), and 
was so named to distinguish it from the Hexaplar 
version. The Peshitto is of Judseo- Christian origin, 
and is as old as the second or third centuries. 
The translation was the work of several scholars, 
and the portions are of very different merit. The 
Pentateuch is the best-translated portion. The trans- 
lators made considerable use of the LXX. ; but it is 
not improbable that their translation was corrected 
here and there in later times, and so approximates 
more nearly to the LXX. than it did originally. 
Strack observes that the translation of the Chronicles 
is essentially different from that of the other books 
.Noldeke considers that the cause of this is that the 
Nestorians and some of the Monophysites did not 
include in their canon the Books of Chronicles, Ezra, 
Nehemiah, and Esther. It is to be observed, how- 
ever, that Aphraates, who nourished in the second 

4 



50 THE SYRIAC VERSIONS 

quarter of the fourth century, cites all those books 
as canonical. A list of the numerous Scripture 
quotations in Aphraates is given in W. Wright's 
edition of the Homilies of Aphraates in Syriac, vol. 
i., 1869. As the English translation of this work, 
promised by Professor Wright as vol. h\, has unfor- 
tunately never appeared, it may be well to observe 
that a German translation of Aphraates by George 
Bert has been published in von Gebhardt and 
Harnack's Texte u. Untersuch. zur Gesch. d. Alt. 
Christl. Lit., Band iii., Heft 3, 4, 1888, which contains 
also a list of the Biblical quotations. The Apocryphal 
books form no part of the Peshitto proper, but are 
a later addition thereto, although those books are 
contained in old MSS. 

2. The Peshitto version is given in full in both the Paris 
and London Polyglotts, accompanied by a Latin version. 
S. Lee published in 1824 the whole version of both Old and 
New Testaments, which is the edition sold by the British and 
Foreign Bible Society. That edition is for the most part not 
vocalized in the Old Testament. The American missionaries 
have published a fully pointed edition at Urmia, 1852. Single 
portions have been often edited, such as the Pent, by G. G. 
Kirsch, 1787, the Psalms by Erpeniusin 1625 ; and with Latin 
notes (phil. et crit.,) by Dathe, 1768 ; there is also a pointed 
edition of the same by British and Foreign Bible Society; 
and by Nestle in Psalt. Tetraglott., Grcec, Syr., Cliald., Lat., 
1879 ; where the texts are however unpointed. Ceriani, Transl. 
Syra Pescitto V. T. ex cod. Ambros., 3 parts, fob, 1876-79; 
de Lagarde, Libb. V. T. Apoc. Syr., 1861. See L. Hirzel, 
De Pent. Vers. Syr. indole, 1825. Credner, De PrqpA. Min. 
vers. Syr. . . . indole, 1827. N. Wiseman, Horce Syr., Rom., 
1828. Perles, Ifeletemat. Pescli., 1859. Janichs, Animadv. 
crit. in vers. syr. Koli. et Ruth, 1871. Prager, De V. T. vers. 



OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 51 

syr. quaes* crit, Pars I., 1875. Noldeke, Alt-test. Lit., 18G8. 
S. Frankel, Die Syr. Uebersetzung zu den Bb. der Chron. in 
Jalirbb. f Prot. Tlieol., 1879. Baethgen, Untersuchvngen 
iiber die Psalmen, Jalirbb. f. Prot. Theol., 1882. See under 
head of Psalms. 

2. The Hexaplar Syriac is a translation of the LXX. 
version, and of great importance in all questions 
bearing on that version. Its author was Paul, Bishop 
of Telia, a.d. 616-618. Norberg published in 1787 
Jeremiah and Ezekiel after this version, and H. 
Middeldorpf has published Cod. Syr. LTexapl. lib. iv. 
Reg., e cod. Paris, also Jer., xii. Proph. Min., Prov., Job, 
Cant., Threni, Eccl., e cod. Mediol. ed. et coram, illustr., 
1835. T. Skat Rordam published Libri Judicum et 
Ruth sec. vers. Syr.-Hexajpl., 1861. 

On the most ancient Syriac MSS. see Ceriani, Memorie 
del R. Inst. Lomb. di Scienze e Lett., Ser. iii., vol. xi., 2. 
W. Wright's Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in British Museum, 
1870. The most complete account of Syriac literature is 
W. Wright's article in the Encycl. Britannica, vol. xxii. See 
the sketch in Eb. Nestle's Syrische Grammatik rnit Litt. 
Chrest. u. Gloss., 2nd ed., 1888. An English translation has 
been issued by A. E. S. Kennedy, 1889. Among the principal 
modern Syriac grammars are that of Uhlemann, 1829, 2nd ed., 
1857 ; Engl, trans, by Hutchinson, New York and Edinb., 1854. 
A. T. Hoffmann, Gram. Syr., Libb. iii., 1827. Ad. Merx. 
Gramm. Syr., Pars i., 1867 ; Pars ii., 1870, not yet completed. 
Th. Noldeke, Kurzgefass. Syr. Grammatik, 1880. In English : 
Phillips, Elements of Syr. Gramm., 3rd ed., 1866. B. H. 
Cowper, Syriac Gramm., 1858. In French : B. Duval, Traite 
de Grammaire Sy Hague, Paris, 1881. On the Syriac Massora. 
see Wiseman, Horce Syr., 1828 ; M. l'abbe Martin, 2i adit ion 
Karkaphienne, ou la Massore chez les Syriens, Paris, 1870 ; 
Hist, de la Punct., on la Massore chez les Syriens 1875. The 
Lexicons are : Castell, Lex. Syr. cur. J. H. Michaelis, 1788, 



52 THE SYRIAC VERSIONS. 

The lexicon attached to Kirsch's Chrest Syr. cum' lex., ed. 
by G. H. Bernstein. 1832. 1836, is most nseful to supplement 
the former. E. Payne Smith. Thesaurus Syriacus, is not yet 
quite completed (vol. i., 1879, vol. 2, fasc. vi., 1883, vii, 1886, 
viiL, l>9dto end of f|. ) 

The other Oriental versions, such as the Arabic, 
Persian and Ethiopic, are of very secondary import- 
ance, and must here be passed over. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE GREEK VERSIONS. 

1. rpHE Septuagint. The most important of the 
ancient versions is the Alexandrian Greek 
translation, generally designated the LXX., and in 
former times sometimes the LXXII. The name is 
popularly explained by the legend in the apocryphal 
Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates, namely, that at 
the suggestion of Demetrius Phalereus, librarian at 
Alexandria, king Ptolemy Philadelphus (b.c. 286- 
246) requested Eleazar, the high priest at Jerusalem, 
to procure a Greek translation of the Jewish Law 
for the Royal Library at Alexandria. Aristeas gives 
an interesting description of the temple at Jerusalem 
and its cultus. In accordance with the request, 
Eleazar sent down to Egypt six men selected out 
of each tribe, seventy-two in all, who, in the Isle of 
Pharos, translated the Pentateuch from a MS. written 
in golden letters upon parchment. The translation 
was performed in seventy-two days, was highly 
praised by the Alexandrine Jews, and the translators 
returned laden with gifts to their own land. The 
legend afterwards received amplifications, viz. that 
the translators were shut up in separate cells, that 
they translated the whole Bible, and that they 



U THE GREEK VERSIONS. 

produced each a translation, which on examination 
proved to be word for word identical. 

The Greek text of Aristeas' Letter is given in Havercamp'a 
edit, of Josephus, 1726, but the text there and elsewhere given 
is corrupt. It has been critically edited by M. Schmidt, in 
Merx' Archiv, Band i., pp. 241-312 (1869). The Letter was 
known to Josephus, who has misunderstood and misrepresented 
some of its statements. The Greek is in many places difficult. 
A translation into German is to be found in 0. Waldeck, 
Volltsausgabe des jiid.-hellenistichen Schriftthums der drei 
vorchristl. Jalirh., 1885. See on Aristeas, Noldeke, Alt. Test. 
Litter atur, p. 109 ff., and Papageorgios, Ueber den Aristeas- 
brief, 1880, Schiirer, Gesch. d.jiid. Volkes, see App. 

Aristobulus, a Jewish philosopher (who wrote an 
'E^y^o-is rfjs Mwo-eo)? ypa<f>r)<s, quoted by Eusebius and 
Clem. Alex.), speaks of the Law having been translated 
into Greek in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and 
of Demetrius Phalereus having been employed on the 
work. There are certain difficulties with respect to 
Aristobulus' story, which does not correspond with 
that of Aristeas, although it points to the same 
tradition. Aristobulus was probably teacher of Ph>- 
lometor, and lived in the commencement of the 
second century before Christ. 

See Hody, Be Biblior. textibus orig., 1705. Valckenaer, 
Diatribe de Aristdbulo Judceo, 1806. Schiirer, Gesch. des 
jildischen Voiles im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 2te Ausg. 1886, 
1889. Graetz, Monatschrift, 1876. Joel, Blicke in die 
Religions- Gesch. turn Awfang des ziceit. christi. Jdhrh., 1880. 

However distorted the legend, it is certain that the 
translation of the LXX. originated in Egypt, and in 
the time of the early Ptolemies received general recog- 



THE GREEK VERSIONS. 55 

uition (see App.). The Jews in Egypt, whose numbers 
were increased by the transportation of thousands 
thither in B.C. 320, soon lost all familiarity with their 
own language. The Law was probably interpreted 
very early into Greek in their synagogues, just as in 
other places it had been interpreted into Aramaic. 
All such translations had a tendency to become fixed, 
and after a while, for practical purposes , were com- 
mitted to writing. The Pentateuch was the first 
portion translated, and the translation of the other 
books followed in due time as a matter of course. A 
Greek translation of all the books was in existence 
prior to the composition of the Wisdom of the Son 
of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus, in the prologue to which 
book reference is made to such a translation. It is, 
however, a matter of dispute whether Sirach's work 
is to be assigned to a date so early as B.C. 237-211, 
or to be brought down so late as B.C. 132. The title 
"LXX." was probably given to the Greek transla- 
tion of the Holy Scriptures, because, when issued, 
the translation met with approval, and received the 
sanction of the Jewish Sanhedrin. The number, 
" seventy-two," sprang from the conviction that such 
a work must have been the work of all Israel. But 
the sanction of the Sanhedrin was withdrawn, pro- 
bably in consequence of the reaction against everything 
Greek, consequent on the events of the Maccabean 
era (b.c. 175-135). The execution of a Greek trans- 
lation at the request of king Ptolemy is noticed in 
the Talmud, although the number of the translators 
is there reduced to five, and the birthday of the 
translation is stigmatised as a day as fatal to Israel 



56 THE GREEK VERSIONS. 



as that on which the golden calf was made. Hence the 
fast day appointed on the 8th of the month of Tebeth. 
Comp. Mas. Soferim, 1, and the notes in Dr. J. 
Muller's edition, Megillah, oa, Megillath Taanith, 9a. 

2. The LXX. Version was the production of a 
number of translators. The Pentateuch is the best 
portion translated; next Job and Proverbs. Jeremiah 
has been treated with peculiar freedom, and possibly 
rests upon another recension of the Hebrew text. 
The Book of Daniel is the worst, though peculiarly 
important from an exegetical point of view. The 
LXX. translation of that book was, since the days of 
Irenseus and Hippolytus, supplanted by the version 
of Theodotion, and was only brought to light again 
about a century ago. 



The literature on the LXX. is very extensive, and only a few- 
works can be mentioned. On Morinus' work see p. 3 ; on Hody, 
p. 54. Most important are : Frankel's Vorstudien zu der Sejptua- 
ginta, 1841 ; Geiger's Ursehrift (see p. 34) ; his Nachgelassene 
Schriften, iv. 73 ff. ; Th. Studer, Be vers. Alex. orig. iisu et 
abusu, 1823 ; Eb. Nestle, Septuaginta Studien, 1886 ; the 
articles in the various Bibl. Dictionaries, C. Siegfried, Philo 
und der uberlieferte Text der LXX. in Hilgenfeld's Zeit- 
schrift, 1873. The following scholars have written on the 
LXX. transl. of the various books of 0. T. : Pent., Thiersch, 
1841 ; Joshua, Hollenberg, 1876 ; Judges and Ruth, Fritzsche, 
1864, 1867 ; Samuel, Thenius, Wellhausen and Driver; Isaiah, 
A. Scholz, 1880 ; Jeremiah, Wichelhaus, 1847; A. Scholz, 1875; 
Kiihl, 1882 ; Workman, 1889 ; Ezehiel, A. Merx, Jahrb.f.prot. 
TJieol, 1883 ; Cornill, see under Ezehiel ; Minor Proph., 
Vollers, Pas Bodeha-proph. d. Alex., 1880, and in Stade's 
Theol., 1882 ; Proverbs, Lagarde, 1863 ; Graetz, Monatschrift, 
1884; Job, Bickell, 1862 (see App.); Eccles., Freudenthal, 



THE GREEK VERSIONS. 57 

Hellenist. Studien, 1875. Grinfield's Apol. for the LXX., 
1850, is interesting. 

The value of the LXX. is great, but the facts 
already mentioned show that in the correction of the 
Hebrew text it must be used with great caution. 
Much remains to be done ere the very text of that 
version can be said to be fairly settled. 

3. The editions of the LXX. are mentioned in all 
the larger Biblical Dictionaries. The text in the 
Complutensian Polyglott has been ascertained to be 
in the main that of Lucian's recension, based, how- 
ever, upon MSS. of no great antiquity. The Roman 
edition (issued under the authority of Sixtus V., and 
known as the Sixtine) was based mainly upon the 
Vatican codex, although by no means an accurate 
representation of that MS. The London Polyglott 
in general follows its text. The Oxford edition of 
J. E. Grabe, published in four folios (1707-1720), 
was mainly based on the Alexandrian codex. The 
great edition of Holmes and Parsons, in five folios 
(1798-1827), gives a valuable collation of various 
readings, though deficient in accuracy and arrangement. 

The small quarto edition of L. Bos (1709) is useful, 
because with numerous variants it also contains the 
readings of the other Greek translations. It must, 
however, be used with caution. Tischendorf s edition 
was first published in 1850. Though less ambitious 
than that of Holmes and Parsons, and although it 
does not give so many variants as Bos, it is far in 
advance of both editions. It follows the Sixtine, but 
contains variants of the uncials. The second edition 
was published in 1856 with the Chigi Daniel (see 



58 THE GREEK VERSIONS. 

p. 00), and the fifth was published after the death 
of Tischendorf in 1875. E. Nestle edited the sixth 
edition in 1880, and a seventh edition in 1887. Both 
contain a valuable supplement by Nestle, issued also 
separately, which gives a more complete collation of 
the Sixtine text with the Vatican, Alexandrian, and 
Sinaitic texts, etc. Dr. H. B. Swete, now Regius 
Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, published in 1887 
the first volume (Gen. — IV. Kings) of a manual edition 
of The Old Testament in G?*eek according to the LXX. 
edited for the Syndics of the University Press, with 
the variants of the most important uncial MSS. 
The second volume, containing 1 Chron. to Tobit, is 
now (1891) published. A larger and more important 
edition is in preparation. An English translation of 
the LXX. has been published, The Septuagint Version 
of the Old Testament, ivith an English Translation, 
Various Readings, and Critical Notes. London: S. 
Bagster and Sons. All such works must be used with 
caution. 

A facsimile of the Alex. MS., the uncial of the fifth century 
known as A., was first published by H. H. Baber, 3 vols, foh 
1816-21. and more satisfactorily in autotype under edit, of E. M 
Thompson; vol. 1, Gen.-2 Chr., 1881 ; vol. 2, Hob. -4th Mace, 
1883 ; vol. iii., Ps.-Eccl., 1883, completing the 0. T. The N. T. 
was published in 1879. The facsimile edit, of the Vatican MS., 
the uncial of the fourth century known as B., which was pre- 
pared by Card. Mai, was finally published at Rome, under the 
editorship of C. Vercellone and J. Cozza, the O. T. in four 
vols., 1869-1872 ; vol. v., containing the N. T., was published 
in 1868. Vol. vi, published in 1881, contains very incomplete 
Prolegomena. A photographic reproduction of the 0. T. is 
announced. The photographic edit, of the N. T. has been 



THE GREEK VERSIONS. 59 

published. The Sinaitic MS. is an uncial of the fourth 
century, and is known as tf. A portion of it was published 
under the title of Cod. Frederico- Aug . in 1816, and the larger 
portion of the remainder under title of Bill. Codex Sinaiticus 
Petropol., at St. Petersburg, in three vols, in 1862. Some further 
fragments of Gen. and Num. have appeared under title App. 
cod. celeb. Sin., Vat., Alex., Leipzig, 1867. The other uncials are 
Cod. Cott. Geneseos, known as D., at Brit. Mus., partly destroyed 
by fire, given in Tischendorf s Monum. sacra ined. nov. coll., 
vol. iL, 1857, and further in F. W. Gotch's Supplement, Lond., 
1881. E. is the Cod. Bodl. Geneseos, also in same vol. of 
Tischendorf. F. is the Cod. Anibros. (Gen. xxxi. 15-Josh. xii. 
12 with gaps), edited by Ceriani in Monum. sacr. et pro/ana, 
Mediol., 1864. 

4. The text of the LXX. put forth by Origen (a.d. 
236) in his Hexapla (see p. 61), was soon recognised 
as the common (kolvtj) or accepted text. Later, 
Lucianus, Presbyter of Antioch, who died as a martyr 
in a.d. 311, issued a revised text, widely accepted in 
Syria and elsewhere. About the same time Hesychius, 
bishop and martyr (died 310 or 311 in Egypt), 
executed another revision, used extensively in that 
country. Paul de Lagarde published the first part of 
a restoration of the Lucianic recension in his Librorum 
V. T. canon, pars prior Greece, 1883 (541 pp., with 
xvi. pp. of preface), and is now preparing the 2nd vol. 
See also Field, Origenis Hexapl., Prolegomena, cap. ix., 
and Driver, Notes on Samuel, Introd., pp. l.-lii. 

5. There are two concordances to the LXX., that of Kircher, 
1607, in 4to ; or, better, that of Trommius, 2 vols, fol., 1718, 
neither satisfactory. The first fascic. of Dr. Hatch's Concord- 
ance to the LXX. is in press, and will soon be published. 
The Lexicon to the LXX. of J. Ch. Biel, 3 vols., 1771), edited in 
a considerably enlarged form in 5 vols, by J. F. Schleusner, 



60 THE GREEK VERSIONS. 

1821, is in many respects defective. C. A. Wahl edited a useful 
Clavis Libb. V. T. ApocrypTi., in 4to, 1853. 

6. The Book of Daniel according to the LXX. 
was first published by Simon de Magistris, in 1772; 
afterwards, from the Chigi codex, by H. A. Hahn, 
1845, and given in Teschendorf's editions of the LXX. 
since 1856. More critically by J. Cozza in his Sac. 
Bib. vetustiss.Jrag. grceca et lat., Pars iii., Romse, 1877. 

The ancient versions which are based on the LXX. 
are the Itala (see chap, ix.), the Hexaplar Syriac (see 
chap, vii.), and the Ethiopic, though now considered 
not to have been made directly from the Greek, as 
also the Egyptian translations (Coptic and Sahidic). 
See Strack's Einleitung, 3rd edit., pp. 271, 272. 

7. The other Greek Translations. — (1) Aquila, like 
the Jewish Christian of the same name, mentioned 
in the Acts of the Apostles, was a native of Pont us. 
His name in Greek is 'AkvXols, in the Jerusalem 
Talmud it is Hebraised ch^V, but in the Babylonian 
Talmud it is written Dl^pJW (see chap, vi., p. 43). 
Aquila was a Greek proselyte to Judaism, and 
executed his translation from a polemical standpoint 
as a counterpoise to the LXX. translation, which 
was quoted by Christians in favour of their views. 
His translation seems to have been well received by 
the Jews. Only fragments of it unfortunately are 
extant. These prove it to have been slavishly literal, 
full of Hebraisms, and often only to be understood 
by reference to the Hebrew. It is a question of 
debate whether the extant translation of Ecclesiastes 
is not mainly the version of Aquila, and though the 
evidence is on the whole rather against that theory, 



TEE GREEK VERSIONS. 61 

there can be little doubt that the LXX. translation of 
that book has incorporated not a few of the readings 
of Aquila. The version of Aquila is at least as old 
as the time of the Emperor Hadrian. 

(2) Theodotion (©eoSoTtW, sometimes called ®eo- 
Soros) was according to Irenseus a Jewish proselyte 
of Ephesus, and according to Eusebius, an Ebionite. 
As he is mentioned by Justin Martyr (cir. 160) he 
must have written prior to that date. His transla- 
tion was in several respects a revision of the LXX. 
His translation of Daniel wholly supplanted the 
latter in ecclesiastical use. But of the other books 
only fragments of his version are extant. 

(3) Symmachus (Sv/Jt/^X 05 ) appears to have exe- 
cuted his version somewhat later than Theodotion. 
According jto 'Eusebius he was an Ebionite; according 
to Epiphanius a Samaritan, who became a Jewish 
proselyte. He aimed at combining perspicuity of 
translation with fidelity to the original. Only frag- 
ments of his translation are also extant. 

These three translations comprehended only the 
canonical books of the Old Testament, and not the 
apocryphal. 

(4) The fragments of three other Greek versions have 
come down to us with the remains of the Hexapla 
of Origen. That work was so called from the six 
columns it contained, in which were (1) the Hebrew 
text in Hebrew, (2) the Hebrew written in Greek 
characters, with the versions of (3) Aquila, (4) Sym- 
machus, (5) the LXX., and (6) Theodotion. Words 
wanting in the LXX. were supplied, generally from 
Theodotion's version, and marked with asterisks ;(^c) 



62 THE GREEK VERSIONS. 

words in the LXX. in excess of the original text were 
marked with an obelos (-f-), the shape of which mark is 
not always uniform. The copyists, however, often mis- 
understood these and other critical marks, and hence 
many errors have crept into the LXX. text, which 
not unfrequently contains connate or duplicate ren- 
derings. The name Tetrapla was sometimes given 
to Origen's work, from editions which contained only 
the four columns of the Greek versions of Aquila, 
Symmachus, LXX., and Theodotion. The three other 
Greek translations are in some books of the Old 
Testament referred to by Origen, designated Quinta, 
Sexta, and Septima. The work of Origen was some- 
times designated Heptapla and even Octapla, from 
occasionally containing seven or eight columns. 

8. Bern, de Montfaucon edited in 1713 the fragments of 
Origen's work which remain, in 2 vols, folio. But the most 
complete and scholarly edition is that issued from the Oxford 
Press, Origenis Hexaplorum quce super sunt : sive Veterum 
interpretum Grcecorum in totum Vetus Test. Fragmenta. Post 
Flaminium Nobilium, Drusium, et 3Iontrfalconium, adhib. 
etiam vers. Syro-Hexaplari, concinnavit, emend, et mult Is 
partibus auxit Fredericus Field, A.M. 2 vols. 4to, 1875. See 
addenda on Aquila, Symm. and Theod. in Field's Otium 
Korvicense, Parti., 1864. 

9. In the Hexapla the name ni!V is written in 
Greek IUIII. This fact, mentioned by Jerome, arose 
from ignorance in the scribes, and in the wish to 
reproduce the appearance of the sacred name. For n 
in older forms of the Hebrew alphabet was written 
almost like n, and the downstroke of the * was 
sometimes prolonged so as to be like i. The Greek 



THE GREEK VERSIONS. 63 

I1111I is a close resemblance of mm (mrp) as the word 
presented itself to their unpractised eyes. 

10. The Greek translation, known as the Graecus 
Venetus, discovered in MS. in the library of St. 
Mark, Venice, is no authority for the ancient 
reading of the Hebrew text. It cannot be older 
than a.d. 1200, for the translator was acquainted 
with Kimchi's Book of Roots, and it was evidently 
executed from a pointed Hebrew text. It is, how- 
ever, otherwise of much interest. The version, though 
sometimes barbarous Greek, is executed with great 
fidelity. Its author was a Jew acquainted with Greek 
literature, and with considerable insight into Hebrew. 
The best edition is that of Gebhardt : Grcecus Venetus, 
Pentateuchi, Proverbiorum, Ruth, Cantici, Ecclesiastce, 
Thren., Danielis, Versio Grceca. Ex unico Bibl. 
S. Marci Venetce codice nunc primum uno vol. com- 
prehensam atque apparatu critico et phil. instructam 
ed. 0. Gebhardt. Prmfatus est F. Dclitzscli, 1875. 
Delitzsch considers its author was an eminent Jewish 
scholar of the name of Elissaeus (i^px) who flourished 
in the fourteenth century. 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE ANCIENT LATIN VERSIONS. 

1. r I ^HE version known as the Itala is the more 
J- ancient of the two Latin versions. The 
Itala is a very literal translation of the LXX., even 
to the extent of slavishly copying evident blunders, 
and hence it is of the greatest value as a witness to 
the LXX. text. It was executed in the second cen- 
tury, by unknown translators. Jerome speaks of 
only one such translation, while Augustine seems to 
refer to several. The name Itala is derived from 
a passage in Augustine (De Doct. Christ., ii.), where 
according to Kreyssig and Eichhorn the name arose 
from an error of a scribe. If the word Itala be 
the true reading the version originated in Italy. 
The version has, however, been preserved only in 
extensive fragments, the only books of the Old Tes- 
tament preserved entire being the Psalter, the Book 
of Esther, with the apocryphal books : — the third Book 
of Ezra, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 
and Maccabees. 

The best edition of what remains is that of Sabatier : Bill, 
s. Latince Verss. antiques s. Veins Italica et cater a quacunque 
in codd. mscr. et antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt, 1739- 
1749, 3 vols, folio, and with a new title by Didot, 1751. The 
third vol. contains the New Testament. Fragments from 



THE ANCIENT LATIN VERSIONS. 65 

palimpsests have been published by F. Milliter, 1819 ; and by 
Ernst Ranke in 1871. Fragments of other antehieronymian 
versions, e.g. of 1 and 2 Kings, have been published by J. 
Haupt, Vindob., 1877, and by Ulysse Robert, Pent. vers. 
Zat. antiqmssima e cod. Zugd., Paris, 1881. See also L 
Ziegler, Lie lat. Bilelubersetzungen vor Hieron. u. die Itala 
des Avgustinus, Munchen, 1879 (pp. 135. 4to). H. Ronsch, 
Itala und Vulgata. JDas Spracliidiom der urchristl. Itala 
tmd kathol. Vulgata, etc. Marburg, 18&9 (pp. 510). Also 
Ronsch's articles in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift f. wissensch. 
Theol., 1875, 1876 and 1881. 



2. The Vulgate. As numerous corruptions crept 
into the old Latin version, Jerome in 382 set to work to 
revise that translation. His first edition of the Psalter 
was a simple revision of the Itala. The revision is 
known as the Psalterium Romanum, and was used up 
to the time of Pius V. in the Roman Church. Portions 
of it are yet to be found in the Missal and Breviary. 
But the work was done too hastily to be satisfactory. 
Jerome next revised many portions of the Old Tes- 
tament version after Origen's Hexaplar text of the 
LXX. Of that revision only the Psalter and the 
Book of Job are extant. The revised translation of 
the Psalms is known as the Psalterium Gallicanum, 
because it came into common use in Gaul. Jerome 
then proceeded to translate the Psalms directly from 
Hebrew, and extended his translation to the other 
books of the Old Testament, inclusive of some of the 
Apocryphal books. The work was completed between 
a.d. 390-405. Jerome's revision of the Psalms known 
as the Gallican had, however, obtained so firm a footing 
that that version was incorporated into the Vulgate, 

5 



66 THE ANCIENT LATIN VERSIONS. 

and not the translation from the Hebrew. Jerome's 
translation of the Psalter from the Hebrew has been 
separately edited by P. de Lagarde (Leipzig, 1874), 
and it is contained in the Liber Psalmorum Ileb. 
atque Latinus ab Hieronymo ex Hebrceo conversus, 
consociata opera ediderunt C. de Tischendorf, S. Baer, 
F. Delitzsch. Lipsise, 1874. It is also to be found in 
Bagster's Biblia Ecclesice Polyglotta. 1843. 

3. Jerome's Revised Version met with the bitterest 
opposition, and, although he strove to conciliate oppo- 
nents, to the serious detriment of the work, by adhering 
as closely as possible to the older version, it was long 
ere it won popular favour. Jerome dictated his 
translation to an amanuensis, and this fact, combined 
with the common use of the older version, and the 
carelessness of the scribes, led to the serious deprava- 
tion of the translation. In process of time it was 
generally received, and termed the common version 
or Vulgate. Alcuin, the preceptor of Charlemagne, 
effected something in the early part of the ninth 
century (801) towards a restoration of Jerome's 
translation, followed by Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans ; 
and several attempts were made by other scholars 
in the same direction in the eleventh and twelfth 
centuries, and by Correctoria biblica in the thirteenth. 
The result was, however, the still further corruption 
of the text. 

4. The Vulgate was among the first, if not the 
very first book printed, but the earliest books were 
unfortunately printed without dates. The earliest 
editions, however, were printed from comparatively 
modern MSS., and hence are of little authoiity. 



THE ANCIENT LATIN VERSIONS. 67 

5. Cardinal Ximenes' edition of the Vulgate in 
the Complutensian Polyglott (1514-1517) was the 
first attempt at a critical text. B. Stephanus issued 
several improved editions, first in 1528, and later in 
fclio in 1540. For the latter work he collated four- 
teen MSS., and several printed editions. 

6. The decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. iv., 
April 8th, 1546) declared the Vulgate "authentic." 
This authorisation of the Vulgate necessitated the 
publication of a standard text, and an " editio 
authentica" appeared under Sixtus V. in 1590. The 
edition was declared in the Papal Bull to be " vera, 
legitima, authentica et indubitata in omnibus pub- 
licis privatisque disputationibus." But ere it was 
issued many readings had to be emended by printed 
slips pasted over the printed text, and other correc- 
tions were made with the pen. A new edition, after 
considerable controversy both without and within the 
Boman Church, was issued in 1592 in the Pontificate 
of Clement VIII. The text of the latter edition is said 
to differ from the former in about three thousand 
places. Other editions followed in 1593 and in 1598, 
each with considerable variations. 

7. A critical edition of Jerome's translation has not 
yet appeared, although materials have been collected 
for such an edition by the labours of many scholars, 
especially for the New Testament portion. Vercellone 
(see p. 68) has collected important material for the 
correction of the Old Testament text. The English 
Biblical student will do well to consult the version 
known as The Douay Version as being an accredited, 
if not absolutely " authentic," English translation o*' 



68 THE ANCIENT LATIN VERSIONS. 

the Vulgate, in use in the Roman Catholic Church. 
For critical purposes that translation must be verified 
by reference to the Latin original. 

The text of the present Vulgate is by no means 
uniform. The Old Testament is often a composition 
of the Itala and of Jerome. The greater portion of 
the work contains Jerome's translation from the 
Hebrew. The version of the Psalms as already noticed 
is that of the Gallican Psalter. Jerome added in his 
version critical marks after the example of Origen 
(see p. 61). But these have utterly disappeared, to 
the great detriment of the integrity of the text. The 
Apocryphal Books of Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 
and the Maccabees are taken from the Itala. 

8. See Bellum Pajjale s. concordia discors Sixti V. et de- 
mentis VIII. circa Hieronymianam edit. Auctore Thomas 
James, Lond.. 1600. G. Biegler, Kritiselie Gesch. d. Vulg., 
Salzbach, 1820. Leander van Ess (Eom. Cath.), Pragmatisch- 
hvit. Gesch. d. Vulg., Tubing.. 1821. F. Kaulen (Eom. Cath.), 
Gesch. d. Vulg. (502 pp.). Mainz 1868 ; also his Handl. zur 
Vulg. (280 pp.), 1870. Bukentop, Lux de luce libb. tres 
[lib. iii. on the Sixtine ed.]. See also tha Bible Dictionaries, 
especially the articles by O. F. Fritzsche in the Prot. Real- 
Encyclop. 

Varies Lectiunes Vulg. Lat.Bibl. edit, quas Carolus Tercel- 
lone, Sodalis Barnabites digessit, 4to. This work, which was 
issued at Borne under Eapal patronage, has been left unfinished 
by the death of the learned editor. Only three parts have 
appeared : Tom. i.. Pent., 1860. Tom. ii, Pars i., Josue, Jud., 
Ruth et I. Peg., 1862. Tom. ii., Pars ii., Libb. II, III, IV, 
Reg., 1861. Yercellone also edited a Ito edition of the Vulgate, 
Rom. 1861. 

Bibl. sacra Latina V. T. Hieron. xnterj). ex antiquis*. 
auct. in stichos descrijjt. Vulg. lect. . . . test, comitatur cod. 



THE ANCIENT LATIN VERSIONS. 69 

Amiatini latinorum omnium antiquiss. ed. instit. . . Theod 
Heyse, ad fin. perdux. C. de Tischendorf, 1873. See alac 
Baethgen in Zeitschrift f. alt-test. Wiss., 1881 ; and Lagarde 
Probe einer neuen Ausgabe der lot. Uebersetiungen d. A. T., 
Gott., 1885. 




PAET II. 



CHAPTER X. 

THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 

1. T I ^HE first five books of the Old Testament are 
JL commonly termed the Five Books of Moses, 
and designated the Pentateuch. The Greek name is 
.7 7rcvraTcv^og scil. fiifiXos, the word 7r€i/rarei;^05 being 
used as an adjective. To Tevxos properly denoted the 
box, or chest in which the rolls were kept, and was 
used also by Symmachus as a synonyme for the Hebrew 
•"l???, or roll. The Latin Pentateuchus is masculine, 
the word liber being supplied. The most common 
Hebrew title is the Law (the Torah, ""ninn, Neh. viii. 
2ff), also called The Book of the Law of Moses (Neh. 
viii. 1), and other designations (Neh. viii. 3, ix. 3, 
xiii. 1). It is commonly termed in the Talmud and 
by the Rabbins rninn ^pin n^pq, the five-ffths of 
the Law. Other titles may here be passed over. 

2. The Pentateuch occupies in the Old Testament 
a position akin to that which the Four Gospels occupy 
in the New. The account of our Lord's life presented 
in the Four Gospels is the basis on which the system 



THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 11 

of faith and doctrine taught by the other writers of 
the New Testament is founded. Similarly the history 
and theology of the Pentateuch underlie the other 
books of the Old Testament. Even if it could be 
proved that the details of the Israel itish ritual set 
forth in the Pentateuch do not altogether harmonise 
with the references thereto in the other books of the 
Old Testament, it is indisputable that the facts of 
history set forth in the Pentateuch are everywhere 
accepted in the other books of the Jewish Scriptures, 
whether historical, prophetical, or poetical. 

3. The five books of the Pentateuch do not, how- 
ever, constitute a complete work. The Book of Joshua 
is required to finish the history, and to give symmetry 
to its several component parts. Nor does the Book 
of Joshua viewed separately present the appearance 
of a complete historical work. It is but the closing 
portion of the history begun in the Pentateuch. The 
partition of the land of Canaan among the twelve 
tribes of Israel is only the sequel of the narrative of 
the Exodus, to which the Book of Genesis is a grand 
introduction. Hence there is much in favour of the 
opinion now prevalent among critics, that the Hebrew 
Scripture commences with a Hexateuch rather than 
with a Pentateuch — i.e., that they open with an 
historical work consisting originally of six books. 

The acceptance, however, of this hypothesis, now 
adopted by the best critics, does not necessarily run 
counter to the substantial recognition of the Mosaic 
authorship of the earlier Five Books. The Pentateuch 
does not claim as a whole to have been written by 
Moses. It contains statements (e.g. Exod, xi. 3 and 



72 THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 

Num. xii. 3) which cannot easily be reconciled with 
the traditional view, and passages which, according 
to the opinion of the most earnest defenders of the 
Mosaic authorship, must have been added long after 
the date of Moses. 

4. Portions of the work, and those by no means 
inconsiderable, are unquestionably ascribed to Moses. 
These are : (1) " The Book of the Covenant," Exod. 
xx.-xxiii. ; see Exod. xxiv. 4-7. (2) The Book of the 
B/enewed Covenant, Exod. xxxiv. 10-26; see ver. 27. 
(3) The Divine decree concerning the destruction of 
Amalek, Exod. xvii. 14. (4) The list of the stations of 
* the journeys of the children of Israel," Num. xxxiii., 
which claims to be a compilation from the records of 
the Lawgiver; see Num. xxxiii. 2. (5) "The Law" 
referred to in Dent. xxxi. 9, 11, 24-26 is stated to 
be Mosaic, although the exact extent, however, of 
that " Law " is doubtful, Some critics suppose it to 
include the whole of the Book of Deuteronomy, be- 
cause that book professes to contain the substance of 
Moses' last addresses to the children of Israel ; others 
consider " the Law " spoken of to have been more 
restricted. (6) The Song of Moses, Deut. xxxii. ; 
see Deut. xxxi. 19, 22. And (7) "The Blessing" of 
the twelve tribes, Deut. xxxiii. 

5. The division of the Pentateuch itself into five 
separate books is not generally recognised in Hebrew 
MSS. In MSS. the five books are treated as one, and 
are divided into larger and smaller sections, numbered 
consecutively from the beginning of Genesis to the 
end of Deuteronomy. The division into books is not, 
however, on that account to be regarded as either 



THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 73 

modern or arbitrary. The extant Hebrew MSS. are 
too modern to be any authority on such a point, 
while the work itself naturally falls into these five 
portions, more or less independent of each other. 
The Book of Joshua in Hebrew MSS. is always 
regarded as a separate work. 

6. The arrangement of the Mosaic writings as a 
completed Pentateuch, and the treatment of the 
Book of Joshua as an independent history, can be 
traced back to the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. In 
the writings of that period the five books together 
are variously referred to as " the book of the Torah," 
or "Law" (Neh. viii. 3), "the Law" (Neh. viii. 2), 
"the Law of God" (Neh. viii. 8), and "the Law 
of Moses" (Ezra iii. 2 ; Mai. iii. 22, E. V. iv. 4). 
Similar designations occur in the New Testament, 
where the Jewish Scriptures are referred to as a 
whole under the title, "Moses and the Prophets," 
and where the books of the Pentateuch are quoted 
as "Moses," or "the Law." The expression "the 
Law " is, however, also employed in the New Testa- 
ment to designate the books of the Old Testament in 
general. See John x. 34, xii. 34, xv. 25 ; 1 Cor. 
xiv. 21. 

7. The Psalter was arranged in five books as far 
back as the time of Nehemiah (see ch. xiv. § 2), and that 
division had special reference to the five books of the 
Pentateuch. The Midrash on Ps. i. 1 observes: "Moses 
gave the Israelites the five books of the Law, and, 
corresponding to these, David gave to them the Book 
of the Psalms, in which are five books." Delitzsch 
remarks: "This division into five parts makes the 



74 THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 

Psalter a copy and echo of the Torah, which it 
resembles also in this, that as in the Torah, Elohistic 
and Jehovistic sections alternate, so in the Psalter, 
there is a group of Elohistic Psalms (Pss. xlii.-lxxxiv.) 
enclosed on both sides by groups of Jehovistic Psalms 
(Pss. i.-xli. and lxxxv. to cl.)." The Psalter was so 
arranged that the opening Psalms of each of its fi\e 
books should correspond with the several books of 
the Pentateuch. The first book of tho Psalter com- 
mences with Ps. i., which in its phraseology brings 
back to memory the garden of Eden and the streams 
by which it was irrigated. The second book com- 
mences with Ps. xlii., which treats cf the affliction 
in Egypt, and the deliverance from thence of the 
people of Israel, corresponding thus with the Book 
of Exodus. The third book begins with Ps. Ixxiii.. 
which recounts the goodness of God in giving Israel 
the Law (detailed in Leviticus), which Law was an 
abiding mercy, however severely Israel might be 
oppressed by their Gentile conquerors. The fourth 
book opens with Ps. xc, the " prayer of Moses, the 
man of God ; " and in the numbering of the days of 
human existence spoken of in ver. 1 2 the pious editors 
of the Psalter, no doubt, saw an apt reference to the 
numbering of the people narrated in the fourth Book 
of Moses. The fifth and last book of the Psalter 
begins with Ps. cvii., in which M the goodness " of the 
Lord in days of trouble and distress is insisted on as 
vouchsafed in answer to prayer. The Psalm is a 
fitting parallel to Moses' recapitulation of the in- 
stances of God's lovingkindness to Israel set forth 
in Deuteronomy 



THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 75 

8. Although the division of the Mosaic books into 
five, and their separation from the Book of Joshua, 
with which they seem once to have been united, is of 
remote antiquity, the first writer known to use the 
name " Pentateuch " (Pentateuchus, scil. liber) is the 
Latin Father, Tertullian (Contra Marc, i. 10). The 
name cccurs in Tertullian's writings in such a way 
as to show, however, that the expression was not one 
specially invented by himself. The designation was 
also employed by Origen (in Joann., cap. 26), rj 

7T€VTaTCV^OS (filfiXos). 

9. The Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch 
was affirmed by the ancient Jewish authorities. 
They maintained that even the concluding verses of 
Deuteronomy, which record the death and burial of 
the great Lawgiver, were written by him " with tears" 
in anticipation of his approaching end. So Josephus, 
Philo, and the Talmud in Balm Bathra, 15a, Mena- 
c/toth, 30 a. The extravagance of such an idea was 
seen somewhat later, and the verses at the end of 
Deuteronomy were then ascribed to Joshua. The 
early Christian writers at first accepted without 
examination the conclusions of the Jewish writers. 
Some, however, as Jerome and Theodoret, expressed 
doubts on the point whether the Pentateuch was the 
work of Moses or Ezra. 

Modern critics who call in question the Mosaic 
authorship often reject "the supernatural." It is, 
therefore, primd facie not unreasonable to suppose 
that they have been led to deny the Mosaic author- 
ship by the wish to bring down the ancient Hebrew 
literature to the level of the other ancient literatures. 



76 THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 

But the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has 
been called in question by many investigators who 
have no desire whatever to detract from the authority, 
or to deny the Divine inspiration, of the books in 
question. Theological prepossessions ought not, there- 
fore, to be permitted to stand in the way of historical 
investigation. The Book of the Psalter retains its 
full value and importance, whatever conclusions be 
arrived at as to the credibility of the titles prefixed 
to the different Psalms, and the same can be main- 
tained substantially in reference to the Books of the 
Pentateuch. 

Some theologians have sought to settle the question 
by adducing the statements (see p. 73), of our Lord 
and His Apostles. Our Lord refers to the Pentateuch 
as the writings of Moses (John v. 45-47, etc.), and 
speaks of the Law as given by Moses (John vii. 19), 
which statement is repeated by St. John (John i. 17). 
Commandments contained in the Pentateuch are cited 
as directions of Moses (Matt. viii. 4; Mark vii. 10; 
Luke xx. 37, etc.). All, however, that can be fairly 
deduced from such statements is, the Pentateuch 
contains portions written by Moses. It does not 
follow that the five books as a whole were written 
by that lawgiver. Nor is it derogatory to our Lord's 
Divinity to maintain that He argued from the Jewish 
standpoint, without necessarily endorsing the truth 
of the popular opinion. Comp. Luke xi. 19. 

10. The modern notion of the fame of authorship 
was not largely prevalent among the Hebrews. The 
ancient Israelites did not exhibit that pride in 
literary composition common among Gentile nations. 



THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 77 

Stress was laid upon what was written, rather than 
upon the authorship of the writing itself. It was 
not till after the Jews had come into connection with 
the Greeks and Romans that the individual pride of 
literary authorship was aroused in the Hebrew breast. 
The reaction against heathen literature awakened by 
the events of the Maccabee period led to the deprecia- 
tion of anything in the shape of literary production. 
For centuries after that period " the holy books " were 
as a rule the only compositions committed to writing. 
The sententious sayings of the " wise men " of Israel, 
their parables, Biblical expositions, vernacular para- 
phrases of the sacred books (often embellished with 
stories and legends), and their discussions, even on the 
most intricate questions of law and ritual, were all 
exclusively committed to the faithful and well-trained 
memories of disciples.* 

11. The phenomena of the Hebrew Scriptures lead 
to the conclusion that those writings were re-edited 
from time to time, and that notes and additions of 
a later period were not unfrequently introduced into 
the more ancient texts. The care and strictness in 
the copying of the sacred MSS. enjoined by the Jews 
in post-Christian times was comparatively unknown 
at an earlier era. In the Jewish Targums, text and 
comments are hopelessly blended, and the same 
phenomenon is apparent in many places of the LXX. 
version. This practice prevailed not from any desire 
to falsify the sacred writings, but with the object of 

* See on this point, J. S. Bloch, Studien zur Gesch. d. 
Sammlung der alt-heb. Ziteratur, and the Excursus at the 
end of my XoheletJi, pp. 456, 484. 



W THE PENTATEUCH IX GENERAL. 

their explanation. The Hebrew language itself must 
have been repeatedly modernised, although to what 
extent we have no means of ascertaining. The sacred 
books were not. indeed, tf tampered with."' in the 
modern sense of the term. The laws set forth in the 
Pentateuch, although essentially Mosaic, underwent 
revision at a later period, to be adapted to the altered 
circumstances of the nation. It is not surprising that 
some laws of the Pentateuch should be extant only in 
a revised form; but it is remarkable that so many 
have been handed down to us, redolent of the air of 
the desert and of the circumstances of camp life. The 
necessary modification of laws in the process of time 
has been too often left out of consideration. The 
Pentateuch itself contains instances of laws modified 
even in the time of Moses, e.g. the enactments as to 
the property of women (Xum. xxxvi.), etc. Many 
similar modifications must have taken place in the 
course of Israel's troubled history (see p. 82). The 
litual itself demand- ::nal modifications, which 

were justifiable so long as the spirit and object of the 
legislation were retained. Some of these may. perhaps, 
be traced to a limited extent, but no details can be 
laid down with any certainty. Notwithstanding the 
frequent apostasies of Israel, no modification of ritual 
or of song was ever made in the direction of idolatry. 
The Pentateuch was the store-house of the laws and 
religion of Israel. Its books were placed under the 
guardianship, not only of the priests and prophets 
(often at discord with one another), but of the whole 
nation. Had the Pentateuch been preserved in its 
archaic form, it would have been a peculium of the 



THE PENTATEUCH IX GENERAL. 79 



priests, but could not have been safeguarded by the 
people. But being in the possession of the people, no 
modifications of importance could have been made ex- 
cept under competent authority, although occasionally 
necessary in order to make the Law a practical guide 
for religious duty and national life. The Pentateuch, 
as its contents show, was not intended to be an 
archaeological curiosity, to be muttered, chanted, or 
even expounded, by a learned priesthood. It was the 
common possession of the nation at large. 

Critical investigation, indeed, has revealed the fact 
that all the historical books of the Hebrew canon 
are artificially linked together in order to form one 
continuous history of " the holy nation." They were 
probably thus united together under the superintend- 
ance of Ezra, who was in many respects a second 
Moses. Links were designedly added to each book to 
unite them into one grand whole. Those " links " are 
sometimes found in references in the middle of the 
books. But the most remarkable are the connecting 
links (" and ") with which each of the five great sub- 
divisions commence. For as the Law, or Pentateuch, 
was subdivided into its five books, so also the historical 
books, inclusive of the Law itself, were similarly 
arranged in five parts, to wit : (1) the Law, or 
Pentateuch; (2) Joshua ; (3) Judges; (4) The Books 
of Samuel; (5) The Books of Kings. The other 
books classified in the English Bible (after the order 
of the Latin Vulgate) among the historical books, 
namely the Books of Buth and Chronicles, are not 
found in that order in the Hebrew Bible, but are 
placed among the Hagiographa. See pp. 38, 39. 



uO THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 

12. The arguments in favour of the Mosaic author- 
ship of the Pentateuch cannot be here set forth even in 
outline. Kor can any impartial summary be given of 
the arguments on the opposite side. The references to 
its histories and laws found in the other Old Testament 
books, are in favour of a Mosaic authorship. Some 
of its laws were applicable only to a nomadic people 
like Israel in the desert, others could only be obeyed 
when the people were in possession of the land of 
Canaan. Some became obsolete when the territories 
of the individual tribes were no longer preserved ; 
others when the political circumstances of the nation 
rendered it impossible to observe much of the legisla- 
tion designed for the maintenance of individual or of 
ecclesiastical property. The ritual of the Day of 
Atonement became in many details obsolete after the 
Exile ; when the injunctions concerning the construc- 
tion and removal of the Tabernacle were no longer of 
importance. The knowledge of Egyptian customs 
which characterises Genesis and Exodus cannot be 
satisfactorily accounted for on the theory of the com- 
position of the Pentateuch after the Exile. And even 
those portions of Genesis (such as the history of the 
flood) which seem to show an acquaintance with the 
Assyrian and Babylonian lit eiature, contain important 
indications of belonging themselves to a far earlier 
period. See p. 105. 

13. The unity of design traceable throughout the 
Pentateuch or Hexateuch is remarkable. The work 
is no patchwork put together without a definite 
object. Though its composite character may be 
admitted, the documents made use of are united and 



THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 81 

interwoven so as to form a work remarkable for unity 
of purpose. The differences in details, brought to 
light by critical analysis (which has too often exhibited 
a hypercritical tendency), are not destructive of the 
general harmony of the Pentateuch, any more than 
the variations in detail which exist in the Gospels. 
Such differences when duly weighed are confirmatory 
of the main facts of the history. 

The object of the Hexateuch was to relate the 
history of Israel up to the occupation of Canaan. 
The Song of Moses (Deut. xxxii. 7-12), gives a summary 
of the contents of the history. The accounts of the 
creation, and of the peopling of the world, are intro- 
ductory to the narrative of the call of Abraham, and 
the history of Israel's progenitors. Whatever sub- 
sidiary information be imparted, the main object in 
view was never forgotten. The work is not a secular 
history; it is not a collection of national legends; it 
is a religious history ; a history sui generis. The God 
of Israel who guided the patriarchs in their wander- 
ings is ever represented not as a mere national 
divinity, but as the God of the whole earth. The 
selection or election of Israel is related not as a matter 
of national pride, but as an event of world-wide 
importance. Abraham was called out of the midst 
of idolaters, that in him "all the families of the 
earth" might " be blessed" (Gen. xii. 3). The 
Pentateuch, as well as the New Testament, teaches 
the doctrine that Israel was chosen with the ultimate 
object distinctly in view, that through Israel the 
world might be blessed. " Salvation is from the 
Jews " (John iv. 22). 

6 



82 THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL, 

14. In examining the Mosaic records, and tabulating 
the differences in detail which are to be found in the 
laws themselves, the absolute necessity of the gradual 
expansion of law must not be lost sight of. The 
same phenomenon exists in the laws of the New 
Testament. The Sermon on the Mount sets forth 
many of the most remarkable features of our Lord's 
teaching. But strange conclusions might be drawn 
from it, if its doctrines were considered without 
reference to later developments. The Sermon on the 
Mount sets forth the duties of individuals. But the 
duties of individuals become necessarily modified when 
considered in relation to the family, society, or nation. 
The readiness to forgive injuries, which is so commend- 
able in an individual, would be highly detrimental in 
the case of a judge. Laws which are good under 
some circumstances may, when the conditions are 
altered, become even hurtful. Variations in a com- 
mandment do not necessarily imply difference of 
authorship, nor are differences of detail in narratives 
always to be regarded as contradictions. If the first 
directions which our Lord gave to the Apostles and 
to the Seventy (Luke ix. 3, x. 4) had been preserved, 
and the altered commands given at a later period 
(Luke xxii. 35, 36) had been left unrecorded, a very 
different opinion would be formed of the early Christian 
ministry. On the other hand, if the latter directions 
had been recorded in the Gospel of St. John, and 
omitted in that of St. Luke, the fact would have long 
ago been paraded as a conclusive argument against 
the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel. The 
differences existing in the Pentateuch as to the details 



THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 83 

of ritual, etc., ought, therefore, to be well-weighed 
before being brought forward as fatal to unity of 
authorship or of design. 

15. The composite character of the Pentateuch is, 
indeed, one of the accepted results of modern criticism. 
The old traditional view can be no longer regarded 
as correct. The dogmatism of the old divines on the 
Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch is no 
longer defensible. But the ship of the Pentateuch 
is not thereby left to be "driven hither and thither on 
the stormy ocean of the so-called " higher criticism." 
Satisfactory evidence (part of which has been alluded 
to already) can be adduced to prove that the main 
outlines of the work are Mosaic. A bold and fearless 
attitude, however, on all such questions on the part 
of the Biblical student is more likely to convince gain- 
sayers, and to inspire confidence, than a timid appeal 
to authority by the endeavour to put an undue strain 
on New Testament statements. The history of Biblical 
criticism in past ages ought to be a sufficient warning 
to theologians not to have recourse to a line of argu- 
mentation which again and again has proved disastrous 
to the cause of truth, and which, in place of driving 
away the clouds of scepticism, has tended only to 
foster unbelief among students. The safest course 
for the apologists of the Bible to adopt is boldly to 
argue that the foundations of faith are in reality 
unaffected by any conclusions which may ba arrived 
at on purely literary questions. Such an attitude 
has been already judiciously assumed, even with regard 
to the Gospels, by Row, in his work on the Jesus 
of the Evangelists ', and in his Bampton Lectures. And 



84 THE PENTATEUCH IN GENERAL. 

a similar attitude ought to be assumed in relation 
to Old Testament investigations in general, and to 
inquiries into the composition of the Pentateuch in 
particular. No theories of inspiration can be per- 
mitted to stifle investigation. The existence of the 
" supernatural" in Scripture and the Divine inspira- 
tion of the prophets and " holy men of old " is by no 
means shaken by the fact of historical discrepancies, 
or even by occasional contradictions in books which 
have come down to us from such distant ages. Those 
who, in the face of modern critical investigation, affirm 
the necessity of a belief in the historical infallibility 
of every fact recorded in the Sacred Writings, verily 
" know not neither what they say nor whereof they 
affirm." 



CHAPTER XI. 

SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF PENTATEUCH 
CRITICISM. 

1. T I THE opposition to the Mosaic authorship of 
-L the Pentateuch on the part of some of the 
early heretics was based on dogmatic and not on 
critical reasons. There is no evidence to show how 
early critical doubts on the subject first arose among 
the Jews. The fact that Ibn Ezra (ob. circa 1167) con- 
troverted the views of a critic of the eleventh century 
after Christ, who assigned portions of Genesis to the 
time of Jehoshaphat, is a proof that the old Jewish 
scholars were not unanimous on the question. Among 
the scholars of the Reformation, Carlstadt (1520), 
on critical grounds, called in question the Mosaic 
authorship of the whole of the Pentateuch, although 
he regarded the Law as Mosaic. He thus anticipated 
the conclusions arrived at by conservative scholars 
in the present day. Masius (1574) maintained that 
the Pentateuch received its present shape from Ezra. 
The critics of the following centuries explained the 
anachronisms of the books, and the other discrepancies 
which were successively brought to light, by supposing 
that the books of the Pentateuch contained more or 
less extensive interpolations. 



86 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY 

2. The work of Astrnc (1753), a distinguished 
Piofessor of Medicine at Paris, gave a new direction 
to critical investigation. Like his great predecessor 
Vitringa, Astruc maintained that Moses made use of 
earlier documents in the composition of the Pentateuch, 
and that large portions of those documents were in- 
corporated wholesale into his work. The documents 
so incorporated were, he maintained, easily distin- 
guishable from each other by their use of different 
names for the Divine Being, one document using 
exclusively the name Elohim (God), while another 
preferred to employ the name Jehovah (or Jahveh). 
Astruc maintained, however, that besides the main 
Elohistic and Jehovistic documents, Moses made 
use of nine other minor writings, which could be 
distinguished by careful study and comparison of 
passages. His theory was expanded by subsequent 
scholars, the majority of whom denied even a Mosaic 
editorship, some assigning the Pentateuch to the 
period which intervened between Joshua and Samuel, 
and others to a later date. 

3. The writings of Astruc, and of the scholars who 
followed, gave rise to various theories on the subject of 
the composition of the Pentateuch, (a) The fragment- 
hypothesis had been propounded earlier by Peyrer 
(1655) and Spinoza (1670), but their suggestions 
had been generally disregarded. The theory was 
now adopted with considerable variety of detail 
by Alex, Geddes (1792-1800), a learned and free- 
thinking Roman Catholic ; by J. S. Vater (1802- 
1805); A. Th. Hartmann (1831), etc. According 
to it, the Pentateuch was composed by the piecing 



OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM. 87 

together of a number of fragments, often united 
without a very definite plan. This hypothesis, though 
it held its ground for a time, was finally abandoned 
as untenable. (6) It was followed by the enlarge 
ment or completion-hypothesis, according to which the 
Elohistic portion of the work was viewed as the basis, 
and the whole supposed to have been revised by a 
later editor, the Jehovist, who added to it not only 
a considerable number of fresh sections, but also 
notes throughout. Deuteronomy was, according to 
this theory, supposed to be the latest portion of the 
work. This hypothesis, which would now be con- 
sidered conservative, was upheld by a number of 
eminent scholars, among whom Tuch (1838), Bleek 
(ob. 1859), and Knobel (ob. 1863) may perhaps be 
mentioned as the most remarkable, (c) The document- 
hypothesis, which is still the prevailing theory, 
requires more particular notice, as well as (d) the 
Graf-Wellhausen-hypothesis, which is a modification of 
the latter with, however, important differences. See 
pp. 95 ff. 

4. The critical theories of de Wette (1817-1844) 
were from the first unfavourable to the Mosaic 
authorship of the Pentateuch. According to him, 
the only Mosaic fragment in existence was the 
Decalogue. Although his opinions on the point were 
strongly opposed by eminent scholars, his arguments 
in proof that Deuteronomy and the other four books 
were the work of different authors gradually won 
general acceptance, and were carried further by 
Bleek, who maintained that the Book of Joshua was an 
integral part of the completed work, and consequently 



88 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY 

that the Jewish Scriptures originally commenced with 
a Hexateuch. See p. 71. 

5. The Document -hypothesis. The researches of 
Ewald and others led to the general acceptance 
among critics of the view that the Elohistic and 
Jehovistic documents could be distinctly traced 
throughout the whole of the Pentateuch; although 
the special peculiarity in the use of the Divine names, 
which gave rise to the nomenclature in question, did 
not extend beyond Exod. vi. The existence of the 
documents was afterwards traced throughout the 
Book of Joshua, and, according to some, traces of 
them are to be found even in the Book of Judges. 
The Elohistic portions of the Pentateuch were re- 
garded by Ewald, Hupfeld, and others, to be the 
work of several authors, the Elohistic portions being 
generally considered more ancient than the Jehovistic. 

The four documents out of which the Hexateuch 
was supposed to have been originally drawn up, are, 
the First Elohist, the Second Elohist, the Jehovist, 
and the Deuteronomist. (1) The First Elohist, whose 
narrative was assumed as the basis of the work. 
This document embraces portions of Genesis, most of 
Exodus and Leviticus. Fragments of it are found in 
Numbers, in a few passages of Deuteronomy, and 
throughout a considerable portion of the Book of 
Joshua. The narrative of the First Elohist was 
termed by Ewald the Book of Origins, and by Noldeke 
the foundation-document. It is variously designated 
by other scholars. Schrader terms it the Annalist ', 
Dillmann simply denotes it by A. Wellhausen has 
styled it the Book of the Four Covenants, namely, 



OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM. 89 

those recorded in Gen. i. 28-30, ix. 1-17, xvii., Exod. 
vi. 2 ff.). Hence he distinguishes it by the letter Q, 
an abbreviation of the Latin quatuor. Inasmuch as 
the object of the writer was to extend the knowledge 
of the Law among the people, and the book was drawn 
up by one closely connected with the priestly order, 
Wellhausen has given it (as finally enlarged by various 
additions made throughout its whole extent) the 
name of the Priests' Code, or the Priestly Code. It 
is, therefore, now very generally referred to under the 
abbreviation PC, or P. "Within the work thus desig- 
nated, the body of laws contained in Lev. xvii.-xxvi. 
has been considered so peculiar, as to have necessarily 
constituted a separate work by itself. This smaller 
portion is termed by Klostermann and Delitzsch the 
Law of Holiness, because it emphasizes in a special 
manner the holiness which belongs to Jehovah, and 
ought to characterize His people. Hence this portion 
of the Priests' Code is often referred to as HG. (the 
initials of the German phrase Ileiligkeits-Gesetz). The 
English initials LH. {Law of Holiness) are, however, 
substituted for the German in the recent English 
translation of Delitzsch's New Commentary on Genesis. 
Dillmann, however, terms this particular corpus 
legum the Sinaitic Law, and marks it by S. Kuenen 
again refers to it as P 1 , to distinguish it from P 2 , by 
which latter sign he designates the Priests' Code. 
This smaller body of law is supposed to have had a 
historical introduction prefixed to it, parts of which 
may possibly have been incorporated into the Priests' 
Code. 

(2) The Second, or Younger Elohist, is generally so 



90 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY 

called, as contrasted with the former writer. "Well- 
hauseu and his followers, however, maintain that 
the writer of the Priests' Code was in reality the 
earlier. This Second Elohist is sometimes styled 
the Theocratic Narrator, from the special bent of 
his narrative. The document is marked B by Dill- 
mann, as second in age and antiquity. Kuenen, 
Delitzsch, and others denote it by E (Elohist), as 
they conceive the writer to be in reality the earlier 
Elohist. 

(3) The Jehovist, or, more properly, the Jahvist. 
The vocalization of the four-lettered name JHYH 
as Jehovah, is, of course, critically indefensible, and 
is merely a concession to popular usage (see p. 36 ). 
The Jehovistic document is regarded by Dillmann as 
third in order of antiquity, and, therefore, marked 
C. It is, however, more generally indicated by J, the 
initial of Jehovist. The writer is styled by Schrader 
" the prophetical narrator." The connection between 
the Jehovist and the Second Elohist Is generally 
considered one of the most perplexing questions 
belonging to the higher criticism of the Pentateuch, 
and the combination of the two latter documents is 
commonly designated by JE. 

(4) The fourth document is generally known as 
the Deuteronomist, and designated by D alike by 
Dillmann and the other scholars, although, of course, 
for different reasons. The fourth writer is generally 
considered to have had before him the writings of 
the three earlier compilers combined into a connected 
history. Hence his additions inserted in the other 
portions of the work were denoted by the letter R 



OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM. 91 

(Redactor or Editor). There are other abbreviations 
occasionally employed, which, though they may annoy, 
need not confuse the student, such as P 1 P 2 for the 
earlier and later editions of PC, R 1 B 2 for first and 
second editor, J 1 J 2 for first and second Jehovist, 
D 1 D 2 for first and second Deuteronomist, etc. LL 
is in Colenso's works used for Later Legislation. 

The four principal writers already noticed are sup- 
posed also to have made use of earlier documents, 
such as : the Decalogue (Exod. xx. 2-17), the Book of 
the Covenant (Exod. xx. 22-xxiii. 19), the Song of 
Moses and Miriam (Exod. xv.), the Book of the Wars 
of Jehovah (Num. xxi. 14, 15), as well as a number 
of minor pieces — Israelitish — as the Song of the Well 
(Num. xxi. 17, 18); or Amorite or Moabitish, like 
the fragment of a song found in Num. xx. 27-30, the 
story and prophecies of Balaam (Num. xxii.-xxiv.). 
Further documents are : Moses' Song concerning Israel 
(Deut. xxxii.), the Blessing of the Tribes (Deut. xxxiii), 
the Book of Jashar (Josh. x. 12, 13). The last-named 
book contained also David's Lament over Saul and 
Jonathan (2 Sam. i. 8ff.), and cannot, therefore, have 
been composed earlier than David's time ; which fact 
goes far to prove that the Book of Joshua, as we have 
it, is itself later than that date. 

6. The Date of the Documents, (a) Noldeke assigns 
the first three documents to the tenth or ninth 
centuries before Christ. According to his view, the 
writers lived at dates not far removed from each 
other. The Priests' Code cannot have been the 
oldest document; but it cannot have been much 
younger than the other documents, and may perhaps 



92 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY 

he assigned to about 800 B.C. The Deuteronomist 
wrote shortly prior to Josiah's reformation. 

(6) Schrader assigns the Priests' Code to the days 
of David. According to that scholar's view, the Second 
Elohist wrote shortly after the great schism between 
the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (b.c. 975-950); 
while the Jehovist. who combined into one the narra- 
tives of the two preceding writers, making himself 
numerous additions, produced his work between B.C. 
825-800. The Deuteronomist is also considered by 
him to have lived in the time of Josiah, and to 
have been one of the prophets. The latter linked 
on his own work to that of the former writers. To 
the Deuteronomist belong portions of Joshua. The 
separation of the Book of Joshua from the Pentateuch 
took place after the Babylonian captivity, and very 
probably received official sanction. Schrader considers 
that the Bcoks of Judges, Samuel, and Kings contain 
extracts from the works of the Second Elohist and 
the Jehovkt. 

It may be well to note that the Hexateuch, when 
viewed in combination with the three Books of Judges, 
Samuel, and Kings, is sometimes styled by the name 
Octateuch, because the Book of Judges in its original 
shape is supposed to have included Judges and 1 Sam. 
i.-vii., the remaining portion of 1 Sam., with 2 Sam. 
and 1 and 2 Kings, being regarded as forming really 
one work — the Book of the Kings. 

(c) Dillmann coincides with Noldeke in his esti- 
mation of the age of the Priests' Code. He considers, 
however, that the work contains portions which go 
back to a remote antiquity, such as that portion 



OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM. 93 

specially termed by him the Sinaitic legislation^. 89). 
In the able dissertation appended to his Commentary 
on Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua (1886), he 
strongly combats the theories of Wellhausen and 
Kuenen, which assign that document to post-exilic 
times. The Second Elohist, according to Dillmann, 
drew up his work in the first half of the ninth 
century, prior to the reign of Jeroboam II. The 
Jehovist is assigned to the middle of the eighth 
century, and the Deuteronomist to the seventh. 

(d) Delitzsch has in his latest writings considerably 
modified the views defended in his earlier works. 
Formerly he considered Deuteronomy as in the main 
Mosaic, and written by some of those personally 
acquainted with the great Lawgiver. In his latest 
writings he has substantially given in his adhesion 
to those who maintain that the Hexateuch is a work 
formed by the combination of the four great docu- 
ments noted above. The Book of Joshua, according 
to him, stands in the same relation to Deuteronomy 
as that in which the Book of Nehemiah stands to 
Ezra. Delitzsch justly lays great emphasis on the 
fact that the terms Law and Pentateuch are not 
identical. The Pentateuch contains the Law, but 
cannot in all its parts be identified with it, although 
this has been assumed as a fact by the vast majority 
of the older commentators. Delitzsch coincides to a 
very considerable extent with the conclusions already 
mentioned. He maintains, indeed, that there are 
large Mosaic elements contained in the Pentateuch, 
but that these are mixed up with others of a much 
later date. The Priestly Code has, indeed, it« roots 



94 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY 

in the Mosaic period, but belongs as a whole to the 
close of the Jewish state. It is, however, as a whole, 
pre-exilian, and prior to the time of Ezekiel. Ezekiel's 
work was influenced by it, not the reverse. Delitzsch 
considers that the history of the creation and onwards 
to the death of Joseph was written in very ancient 
days. The Jehovist and the Deuteronomist were post- 
Solomonic, but certainly composed before the days 
of Isaiah. There may be, however, passages in the 
Pentateuch added even in post-exilian days. 

7. The Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis. The theory 
which is at present most in favour with the pro- 
gressive school of criticism is that known by the 
name of the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis. The theory 
was propounded in 1835 by both Yatke (Bibl. 
Theolog.) and George [Die alteren jiid. Feste), but 
was then sharply criticised, and fell into disrepute. 
Ed. Keuss, though he did not publish his views so 
early, had in his lectures, since 1833, called attention 
to the fact that the history of Israel set forth in 
Judges, Samuel, and Kings contains much which 
conflicts with the theory that the Laws of the 
Pentateuch were in force among that people. He 
further maintained that the Mosaic code was utterly 
unknown to the prophets of the eighth and seventh ' 
centuries. According to him, Jeremiah was the 
earliest prophet who knew of a written law (ch. ii. 8, 
xviii. 18, etc.), and his quotations are made exclusively 
from Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy (ch. iv. 45-xxviii.) 
was the book which " the priests pretended to have 
found in the temple in the time of king Josiah," 
and that code of law is the most ancient part of 



OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM. 95 

the codified legislation contained in the Pentateuch. 
Ezekiel lived prior to the redaction of the Ritual code, 
and of the laws which were definitely arranged by 
the hierarchy. Reuss' Geschichte appeared first in 
1864, afterwards in 1881 and 1890, and his French 
work on the Pentateuch and Joshua in 1879. But 
previous to their publication, K. H. Graf, a former 
pupil of Reuss, published essays in which similar views 
were propounded, in 1855, 1857, 1866, in Merx' 
Archiv (1867-1869), and in the first part of a work on 
Die geschichtl. Biicher, 1866. He maintained that 
almost the whole of the legal portion of the Pentateuch 
was post-exilian, and of a later age than the historical 
narratives. Graf died in 1866. In 1874 Aug. Kayser 
published his work, Das vorexil. Buck der Urgeschichte 
Israels, and in 1881 articles on the state of the 
Pentateuch controversy. In these publications he 
defended the views of Graf, and maintained that the 
3arliest Pentateuch document was the Jehovist, next 
the Deuteronomist, and last of all the Elohist. 

Professor Kuenen, of Leyclen, already well known 
as a Biblical critic, came forward in defence of 
Graf's hypothesis in his Godsdienst van Israel, 1869, 
1870, translated into English by A. H. May, 3 vols., 
1881-2, in his Commentary on the Books of Moses, 
1872, and his Hist.-hrit. Eiideitung, translated into 
German, 1885-1890. Seep. 8, and Appendix. 

But the most able exponent of the theory is 
unquestionably J. Wellhausen, whose work on the 
Text of Samuel, published in 1871, excited great 
attention. His articles on the Composition of the 
Pentateuch appeared in 1876, 1877, and 1878 in 



96 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY 

which year he published the fourth edition of Bleek's 
Introduction to the Old Testament, with emendations 
of his own. Among other works may be mentioned 
his Prolegomena zur Gesch. Israels, being the second 
edition of his History of Israel, vol. i., originally 
published in 1878. His article on "Israel" in the 
new edition of the Encyclop. Britannica, vol. xiii., 
is specially interesting for English students. Well- 
hausen's views are extremely radical. He does 
not acknowledge even the Decalogue to be Mosaic. 
The Book of the Covenant (Exod. xx. 22-xxiii. 
19), he considers, was given to a settled agri- 
cultural people. The Jahvist is "of the golden age 
of Hebrew literature . . . the time of kings and 
prophets" prior to the Assyrian captivity. The work 
of that writer "breaks off suddenly at the blessing 
of Balaam." Only a few fragments of the Jahvist 
occur later, as in Num. xxv. 1-5 and Deut. xxxiv. 
The Deuteronomist was composed shortly before the 
eighteenth year of Josiah, and then contained only 
ch. xii.-xxvi. It underwent several revisions and 
enlargements after the Exile. The Second Elohist 
was much later than the Jahvist, and similarly edited. 
By the second revisers of the Deuteronomist the work 
of the Jahvist and Elohist were united together, and 
this combination marked JE is what Wellhausen 
terms the Jehovist, as, contrasted with the earlier 
Jahvist. He further regards the body of laws in Lev. 
xvii.-xxvi. (see ch. v. 1) as post-exilian, originating 
between Ezekiel and the Priests' Code, not composed 
by that prophet, but nearly related to him. The 
portion of the Hexateuch which remains after the 



OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM. 97 

exclusion of those parts belonging to the Jahvist, 
Elohist, and Deuteronomist is regarded as later than 
the days of Ezekiel, and " a conglomerate as well as 
the work of an entire school." The Priests' Code 
embraced, with some few exceptions, Exod. xxv.-xxxi., 
xxxv. -xl., the Book of Leviticus, Num. i.-x., xv.-xix., 
xxv.-xxxvi. The portions which originally belonged 
to "the Book of the Four GWenants," termed by 
other scholars the Eirst Elohist, are, according to 
Wellhausen, Exod. xxv.-xxix. ; Lev. ix., x. 1-5, 12-15, 
xvi. ; Num. i. 1-16, i. 48 to iii. 9, 15 to ch. x. 28, and 
part of xvi., xvii., xviii., xxv. 6-19, xxvi., xxvii., xxxii. 
in part, xxxiii. 50 to xxxvi. The Pentateuch formed 
by the combination of all these elements was finally 
published by Ezra in the year 444 ; for, according to 
Wellhausen, there is no doubt but that the Law of 
Ezra was the entire Pentateuch. 

In this sketch of Wellhausen's views we have partly 
drawn on the able article entitled " Pentateuch," 
written by. Strack, in Ilerzog-Plitt's Encyclopadie. 
It is impossible to notice the details of all the recent 
modifications of the theory. Notwithstanding the 
ability with which the hypothesis has been put 
forward, the arguments by which it has been 
defended (to which justice cannot be done in any 
bald summary of results), or the popularity it has 
attained among critics, it may safely be predicted 
that the hypothesis will not long be regarded by any 
number of scholars as a satisfactory solution of the 
question of the composition of the Pentateuch. 

8. While new evidence is constantly accumulating 
of the vast extent of the literature and historical 



98 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY 

knowledge possessed by the ancient Egyptians, Baby- 
lonians, and Assyrians, the Graf-Wellhausen theory 
would reduce a large portion of Israelitish history 
up to a short time prior to the Exile to a mass 
of legends and uncertain traditions. If this were the 
case, the Israelites must have been far inferior in 
civilization to the other great nations with whom 
they came in contact, although so vastly superior to 
those nations from a theological point of view. This 
fact is a marvel of which the critics of this school 
do not seem to have any conception, while in other 
matters they exhibit wonderful subtlety. The non- 
observance of any law of the Pentateuch is, on their 
theory, constantly assumed to be a proof of its non- 
existence, although many similar facts can be pointed 
out, like that recorded in Jer. xxxiv. 8 ff. Their idea, 
that the description of the tabernacle is only a fancy 
sketch copied from the temple, loses sight of the fact 
of the important differences between the two erections. 
The description of the tabernacle itself is so minute 
in its details as to admit of its being actually con- 
structed from the sketch presented in the Book of 
Exodus, which in itself is a proof of its historical exist- 
ence (see App.). It is hard to imagine a post-exilian 
writer taking a delight in working out such details, if 
purely imaginary; or even in filling up minute details, 
the broad outlines of which were only derived from 
tradition handed down for centuries. It is especially 
important, from an apologetic point of view, to 
observe that a considerable number of those details 
are devoid of any special symbolical significance. The 
post-Reformation interpreters erred widely by attempt- 



OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM. 99 

ing an arbitrary interpretation of all those details in 
the interest of their peculiar theological opinions. But 
those theologians committed a mistake in attempting 
to read their theology into the Old Testament, and 
they went much further than is justified by the 
Epistle to the Hebrews. 

The tabernacle of Moses, like the temple of Solomon, 
had unquestionably an historical basis, while the 
description of the temple of Ezekiel can be shown 
to belong entirely to the region of the ideal. The 
popular school of "unlearned and unstable" ex- 
positors insists blindly upon "literal fulfilments" 
of prophecy, and bid us conveniently to look out 
to the future for anything which has not yet been 
literally fulfilled. That school has wrought no 
little mischief in the exposition of Scripture, and 
has unwittingly played, as George Stanley Faber 
long ago foresaw it would, into the hands of the 
Rationalists. 

It is very convenient, on the other hand, for scholars 
who defend the G-raf-Wellhausen hypothesis to seek 
to get rid of all, or many, of the references found in 
the Prophets and other Scriptures to the incidents of 
early days, as later interpolations. There has been, 
indeed, on the part of these critics too great a dispo- 
sition to "cook" the documents examined, and to 
assume, on mere hypothesis, that words, sentences 
and paragraphs opposed to certain theories are merely 
the insertions of later editors. Many facts connected 
with the Levites and their position, which are per- 
fectly explicable on the assumption of the Pentateuch 
being substantially Mosaic, become bewildering 

f LofC. 






100 SKETCH OF THE HISTORY 

any other theory. Although the composite character 
of the Pentateuch may be regarded as fairly proven, 
the theory of Wellhausen and his followers is un- 
likely to obtain general acceptance. Several of the 
points accepted by the more conservative Document- 
hypothesis are likely ultimately to be abandoned, 
as accepted on insufficient evidence. The conclu- 
sions generally drawn from the history of 2 Kings 
xxii. (and 2 Chron. xxxiv.) as to the composition of 
Deuteronomy during Josiah's reign, or shortly prior 
to it, cannot be justified by fair argumentation. The 
persecution which took place in the days of Manasseh 
is more than sufficient to account for the general 
ignorance of the Book of Deuteronomy in the early 
days of Josiah. Critics have exhibited too great an 
avidity to discover discrepancies where none exist, 
while the harmonists have erred by attempting to 
harmonize everything. They have too often sought 
to assume for their hypotheses the position of well- 
ascertained facts. The cautious critic will admit 
discrepancies where they really exist, but no further. 
Such discrepancies may, or may not, be contradictions. 
The infallibility of the Hebrew Scriptures is a theory 
which only embarrasses an honest investigator, and 
tends to obscure important evidence in favour of the 
Scriptures. No believing theologian will admit the 
existence of the supernatural in a Biblical narrative 
to be a proof of myth or legend. Notwithstanding 
the numerous assaults on the credibility of the 
Pentatesch, its narratives are likely ere long not 
only to be universally admitted as historical docu- 
ments of the highest importance and antiquity, but 



OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM. 101 

as documents which in all essential matters set forth 
the actual facts of Israelitish history. 

9. Wellhausen's views are set forth in Die Composition des 
Hexateuchs, 1889, originally in Jhb.fiir Beutsch. Theol., 1876 
and 1877, and in his article on Israel in the Encycl. Britannica ; 
also in Proleg. zur Gesch. Israels, 2nd edit., 1883, and in 
Skizzen u. Vorarbciten, i. 1884. Similar views are set forth 
in Kuenen's Religion of Israel, English translation, 1874. 
(See before, p. 8.) E. Keuss, L'histoire sainte et la loi, 1879. 
These views, accepted by many scholars, as Julicher and 
Kayser, have been popularised in Great Britain by Professor 
W. Robertson Smith's Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 
1881, and in America by Professor Toy, of Harvard, and 
others. On the other side Franz Delitzsch, Hoffmann, 
Bredenkamp, C. F. Keil (in two articles in Luthardt's 
Zeitschrift for 1885), have come forward ; as well as 
the eminent Roman Catholic scholar G. Bickell. Of import- 
ance is V. Ryssel's work, Be Elohista Pent, sermone, 1878. 
Articles by scholars on both sides, but chiefly in favour 
of the views advocated by Wellhausen, have appeared in 
Stade's Zeitschrift fiir die Alt-Test'. Wissenschaft. Most 
important are F. E. Konig's Falsche Extreme (1885), Haupt- 
probleme (1884) — the latter work sadly misrepresented in an 
English translation (?) entitled Religion of Israel (1885). 
Although important articles have been written on the subject 
by English scholars, such as Dean R. Payne Smith in his tract 
on the Mosaic Authorship (R.T.S.), Dean Perowne and 
others in the Contemporary Review for 1888, and by Professor 
Driver, on the Critical Study of the Old Testament, in the 
same magazine for 1890, American scholars have taken up 
the subject more warmly. Of importance are the contributions 
of S. I. Curtis's Levitical Priests, 1877 ; his Be Aaronitici 
Sacerdotii atque Thora elohistica origine, 1880 ; and in the 
articles in Current Biscussions in Theology by Chicago Pro- 
fessors (1885 ff. onwards, and elsewhere) ; E. C. Bissell, Pent. 
Origin and Structure, 1885 ; W. H. Green, Hebrew Feasts, 
1886, and many other works and articles ; C. Briggs, important 



102 SKETCH OF THE HISTOliY 

articles on " Higher Criticism " in the Presbyterian Review, 
and the American Journal of Biblical Literature ; Vos, Mosaic 
Origin of Pentateuch Codes, 1886; Essays by American 
Scholars on Pentateuch Criticism, edited by T. W Chambers, 
reviewed by Delitzsch in Luthardt's Zeitschrift (1888), and 
published since in a popular work entitled Moses and his 
Recent Critics, New York, 1889. The discussion on the 
whole question, carried on in the quarterly Hebraica, 1888- 
1890, between Professor W. R. Harper, of Yale, and Professor 
W. H. Green, of Princeton, and not yet concluded, is the most 
minute and important which has yet appeared. Canon Driver's 
article on the Critical Study of the Old Testament, in the 
February number of Contemporary Review, 1890, the subse- 
quent article by Principal Cave, of Hackney College, London, 
and others can only be alluded to (see App.). Consult also 
R. Finsler, Darstellung und Kritik der Ansicht Wellhauserts 
von Gesch. u. Religion des A. T, 1887, reviewed by Baethgen 
in Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1884, No. 4, and C. E. Johansson, 
Den heliga Shrift och den negativa Krittken, Upsala, 1886. 

10. («) On the Pentateuch or Hexateuch in general it 
must be noticed that much valuable matter is contained 
in the writings of Calvin and the Commentary in the 
Critici Sacri (1695) ; Henry Ainsworth, Annotations on 
Pent., 1627, reprinted 1826, 1843 ; Pfeiffer, Bubia Vex., 1704; 
Clericus, Comm. in Pent., 1733 ; Geddes, Critical Remarks, 
1800. Also in the Einleitungen or Introductions to Old 
Testament of De Wette, 7th edit. 1852; 8th edit, by Eb. 
Schrader, 1869. H. A. C. Havernick, see p. 6 ; 2nd edit, by C. 
F. Keil, 1854, 1856. The volume on the Pentateuch in English 
is published by T. and T. Clark; Home, Introduction, 1818, 
1856, Old Testament, revised by S. Davidson 1860. Bleek, 3rd 
edit, by Kamphausen, 4th and 5th by Wellhausen, see p. 8 ; 
S. Davidson 1862, 1863 ; J. J. Stahelin, 1862, Kr. Untersuch- 
ungen, 1843. Also in the articles in Encyclop. Brit. ; Herzog- 
Plitt, Encycl. ; Riehm's Handieorterb. ; Smith's Biblical Dic- 
tionary, etc. ; Baumgarten, Theol. Comm., 1843-4. Neteler, B., 
Studien iiber die Echtheit des Pent., 2 Parts, 1867, 1871. 
Smith, George, Chaldaan Account of Genesis, new edition 



OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM. 103 

by A. H. Sayce, 1881 ; German edit, with additions by Friedr. 
Delitzsch, 1876. F. Lenormant, Les origines de Vhistoire 
i'apres la Bible et les traditions, 1880. J. W. Colenso, Penta- 
teuch and Book of Joshua, 1862-1879 ; Pentateuch and 
Modbite Stone, 1873 ; The New Bible Commentary by Bishops 
and other Clergy critically examined, 1874 ; Vatke, Hist. krit. 
Einl., published after his death by Preiss, 1886 ; Budde, Bibl. 
Urgeschichte, 1883. The Einl. of F. H. R. Reusch, 4th edit., 
1870; Fr. Kaulen, 2nd edit., 1884. The two last are Roman 
Catholic scholars. De Wette's Beitrdge appeared in 1806, 
1807. Th. Nbldeke's Untersuchungen appeared in 1869 ; his 
Alt. Test. Lit. in 1868. A. Th. Hartmann's Forschnngen 
appeared in 1831. E. W. Hengstenberg ; s Genuineness of 
Pentateuch, though extreme, is still of use. It appeared in 
1836, 1839; English translation published by T. and T. Clark. 
H.Ewald's Hist, of the People of Israel,3rd Germ, edit., appeared 
1861-8. It has been translated into English by Professor 
Martineau and J. F. Smith. Dean Stanley's Lectures on the 
Jewish Church generally follow Ewald. Other similar works 
are: Hitzig, Geseh. des VolJcesIsr., 1869 ; Stade, Gesch. des 
Vollics Israel, 1885, 1888 ; E. Renan, Hist, du peuple a" Israel, 
1887 (unfinished) ; R. Kittel, Gesch. d. Heb., 1888 (unfinished) ; 
A. Kohler, Lehrb. d. bibl. Gesch., i. 1875 ; ii. 1, 1884 ; ii. 2, 1889, 
1890 (unfinished). Graves' Bonnellan Lectures, 1807, and G. S. 
Faber's Horce Mosaicce, 1818, still contain matter of interest. 
E. Riehm, Alt-Test. Theologie, 1889. Of great importance is 
Eb. Schrader, Keilinschrift. u. das alt. Test., 2nd edit., 1883 ; 
translated into English, with additions, by Whitehouse, under 
title, Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament: Williams 
and Norgate, vol. i., 1885 ; vol. ii., 1888 ; and, on many points, 
A. Geiger, XIrschrift u. TJebersetzungen, 1857. 

(b) Of Commentaries on the Pentateuch or Hexateuch. 
besides those named already, the more important are : Rosen- 
muller's Scholia in Pent., 1795-8; still useful. J. S. Vater, 
1803-1805. Maurer (ob. 1874), Comm. gram. crit. in V. T, 
1835-1848. C. F. Keil, Genesis and Exodus, 3rd edit., 1878. 
Leviticus to Deuteronomy, 1870 ; English translation of earlier 
edition published by T. and T. Clark. A. Knobel on Genesis 



104 HISTORY OF PENTATEUCH CRITICISM 

to Joshua (1860 ff.). Dillmann on Genesis to Joshua ; see 
under special books. J. P. Lange, Bibelicerk, on Genesis, 
Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy (by Schroeder) ; translated 
in English, with additions, by American scholars ; published 
by T. and T. Clark. In England, in the Speaker's Commentary, 
Bishop Harold Browne has written on Genesis ; Canon Cook 
and S. Clark on Exodus ; T. Espin and J. F. Thrupp on 
Numbers to Joshua. In Bishop Ellicott's Old Testament 
Commentary, 1882, Dr. Payne Smith has commented on 
Genesis, Professor G. Eawlinson on Exodus, C. D. Ginsburg 
on Leviticus, E. J. Elliott on Numbers, C. H. Waller on 
Deuteronomy to Joshua. In the Puljjit Commentary by Spence 
and Exell, the commentary on Genesis is by W. Whitelaw, 
on Exodus by Professor Eawlinson, at greater length than 
in Bishop Ellicott's Commentary, F. Meyrick has written on 
Leviticus, R. Winterbotham on Nwnbers, W. L. Alexander 
on Deuteronomy, J. J. Lias on Joshua, 1881. Important also 
are : Weill, A., Le Pentateuaue selon Moise et le Pent, selun 
Ezra, Paris, 1886. J. Kennedy, The Pentateuch: its Age and 
Authorship, with an examination of modern theories, 1884. 
J. P. P. Martin, Introduction, De Vorigine du Pentateuaue, 
Paris, 1889. A. Westphal, Les Sources du Pentateuaue 
(These de Montauban), Toulouse, 1888. K. Battel, Gesch. 
des Hebrder, I. Quellenkunde u. Gesch. bis zum Tode Josuas, 
1888. 

(c) The following are of importance, though not, of course, 
commentaries : — R. Buddensieg, Die Assyrische Ausgrabungen 
u. das A. T., 1879 ; Giesebrecht's articles on BTexateuchkritih 
in Stade's Zeitschrift for 1881 ; Prof. Sayce's Fresh Light 
from the Ancient Monuments, 1884 ; E. A. W. Budge, The 
Dwellers on the Nile, 1885. G. Rawlinson, Moses: Life and 
Times, 1887. W. Robertson-Smith, Tlie Religion of the Semites, 
Fundamental Institutions, 1889. Briggs, Biblical Study : its 
Principles, Methods, and History (American), 1883. Henry 
A. Harper, The Bible and Modern Discoveries (from the 
Palestine Exploration Fund), 1890. 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE SEVERAL BOOKS OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

§ 1. Genesis. 

1. f I THE name of Genesis is derived from the old 
-L Greek version, known by the appellation 
of the LXX., in which the book is termed yeVeo-is 
Koa/xov, the generation, or origin of the world. The 
book is designated in the Hebrew Bible by its first 
word JWfcO?. Other names given to it, or to parts, 
never became general, such as ^y$) ">??£> ine Book of the 
Creation (the title also of a famous Kabbalistic work), 
l^»n IQp the Book of Jashar, or the Book of the 
Upright (man), or in the plural D^jn 'D the Book 
of the Upright (men), or the patriarchs. 

Genesis falls into two great divisions. Chapters 
i.-xi. 9 contain the account of the creation of the 
world and the primitive history of mankind. This 
portion concludes with the story of the Deluge, and 
the account of the scattering abroad of the human 
race. These histories are most important and con- 
tain narratives of the highest antiquity. 

For although recent discoveries have brought to 
light Babylonian narratives strikingly similar in 
form, the Hebrew narratives exhibit proofs of a 
still higher antiquity. For example, the Babylonian 



106 THE SEVERAL BOOKS 

account of the deluge speaks of a ship (elippa), 
which sailed, and was managed by a steersman. 
Such a statement must be assigned to a later era 
than the account in Genesis, in which mention is 
made only of a floating ark, or hulk, entirely devoid 
of a rudder, and not designed for sailing at all. 

The genealogy of Shem in chap. xi. 10 ff., 
is introductory to the history of Abraham which 
follows. The remaining portion of the book is com- 
posed of the narratives of the three great patriarchs 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob or Israel, whose histories, 
with that of Joseph, Jacob's favourite son, are 
narrated with considerable fulness of detail down to 
the period of the going down into Egypt and the 
sojourn there, with which the book closes. Genesis 
is not an independent book. It is an introduction to 
the history of Israel. 

2. The Book of Genesis contains distinct traces of 
having been drawn up from earlier documents. Modern 
critics have, however, gone too far in the use of " the 
divining rod," and in the assumption that it is possible 
to trace its component fragments. Though the com- 
posite character of the work may be admitted, the 
marks of unity of design and of general harmony 
are equally striking. Some of the conclusions of 
the critics rest upon premisses absolutely incapable 
of proof. 

3. The following may afford a specimen of the 
manner in which the documents are considered to 
have been interlaced with one another. Gen. i., ii., 
to the middle of ver. 4, is considered to have belonged 
to the Priests' Code, (PC. or Q). Chap, ii., beginning 



OF THE PENTATEUCH. 107 

with the last clause of verse 4, up to the end of 
chap, iv., is assigned to the Second Jehovist (J 2 ) with 
a few insertions by the Editor, as in chap. ii. 10-14, 
and single words here and there, including the addition 
of Elohim after the name Jehovah in the expression 
Jehovah Elohim ("the Lord God"). The Elder 
Jehovist (J 1 ) is used in chap. iv. 16 b -24. Chap. v. is 
from the Priests' Code up to ver. 32, with the 
exception of ver. 29, which verse is assigned to the 
Second Jehovist (J 2 ). Chap. vi. 1-4 is from the 
Earlier Jehovist (J 1 ), verses 5-8 from the Second 
Jehovist (J 2 ), with traces of the Editor's hand in the 
middle of ver. 7. Verses 9-22 are from the Priests' 
Code (PC or Q). Chap. vii. 1-10 is from the 
Second Jehovist, ver. 6 being interpolated from the 
Priests' Code, the word " deluge " which occurs there 
being inserted by the Editor's hand, as well as the 
words " male and female " and the name " God " in 
ver. 9. The original name for the Divine Being in 
that verse was probably "Jehovah." Verse 11 is 
assigned to PC, ver. 12 to the Second Jehovist, ver. 
13-16 to the PC, the last clause of ver. 16 being 
from the Jehovist. Verse 17 is a compound of PC, 
Editor, and Second Jehovist. Verses 18-21 are from 
the PC; ver. 22 from the Second Jehovist; ver. 23 
from the Second Jehovist, with the middle clause 
from the Editor himself, while ver. 24 is derived from 
the Priests' Code. 

4. Among the most important commentaries on Genesis 
(besides those mentioned pp. 105, 106), are those by Tuch 
(ob. 1867), 1838, 2nd edit, by Merx and Arnold, 1871 ; Schu- 
mann, Gen. Heb. et Greece, 1829; Schroder, 1846; M. M. 



108 THE SEVERAL BOOKS 

Kalisch (in English), 1858 ; Knobel, 1852, 1860 ; Dillmann, 
1875, 1886 ; Delitzsch, Neuer Comm., 1887, English translation 
by T. and T. Clark, 1888, 1889 ; Gossrau, G. W., Comm. zur 
Genesis, 1887 ; C. H. H. Wright, Gen. in Heb. with gramm. 
and crit. notes, 1859 ; E. Bbhmer, Liber Genesis Pentateuchi- 
cus, 1860, a revised Hebrew text, worthy of note as being an 
attempt to point oftt the various documents by means of Hebrew 
types of different sizes. Bohmer's Das erste Buck der Thora, 

1862 ; T. J. Conant (American), Genesis, 1868 ; J. Quarry, 
Genesis and its authorship, 1866, 2nd ed., 1873 ; H. C. Groves, 
Comm. on Genesis, 1861 ; J. G. Murphy (Professor at Belfast), 

1863 ; T. Whitelaw, in Pulpit Comm., 1880. M. Dods, The Booh 
of Genesis, in T. and T. Clark's Handbooks for Bible Classes, 
1885 ; and his Commentary in Expositor's Bible, 1888. Most 
important for students of Hebrew is G. J. Spurrell's Notes on 
the Hebrew Text of Genesis, 1887 ; G. Ebers' work, Aegypten u. 
die Bilcher Mosis (1868), on Genesis, never reached a second 
volume ; P. I. Hershon, Genesis with a Talmudical Commen- 
tary , transl. by Wolkenberg, 1883 ; also his English transl. of 
Rabbi Jacob's Tzeenah Ureenah (1648), under the title of a 
Rabb. Comm. on Genesis, 1885; G. Rawlinson, Moses, his Life 
and Times. Of the older commentaries, Calvin, Comm. in 
Gen., ed. by Hengstenberg, 1838 ; J. Gerhard, 1637 ; Terser 
(Bishop in Linkoping, Sweden), Adnot. in Genesin, 1657. 
Important articles have appeared in Stade's Alt. Testl. Zeit- 
schrift ; Lutbardt's Zeitschrift ; Harper's Hebraica ; Harper's 
Old and New Test. Student ; The Expositor, etc. Especially 
interesting is Driver's monograph on Shiloh (Gen. xlix. 10) 
in Journal of Philology, vol. xiv. ; J. P. Peters' Jacob's Blessing 
in American Journal of Exeg. Soc., 1886 ; Friedr. DelitzscL, 
Wo lag das Paradies? 1881, reviewed and summarised in my 
article on The Site of Paradise in the Nineteenth Century for 
Oct. 1882. Warren's Paradise Found, Boston, 1885, is inge- 
nious, but impossible. P. Haupt, Der keilinsehriftliche 
Sintfluthbericht, 1881, reviewed, along with Haupt's later 
contribution to Schrader's Keilinschiften u. das Alt. Test. 
(see p. 103), in my article on the Babylonian Account of the 
Deluge in Nineteenth Century for Feb. 1882. Moritz EngeTs 



OF THE PENTATEUCH. 109 

Losung der Paradiesfrage, 1885, is scarcely more successful 
than Warren's. Important is Genesis mit dusserer Unter- 
scheidung der Quellenschriften iibers. v. Kautzsch u. Socin, 1888, 
2nd ed., 1891; F. Lenormant, La Getiese, 1883, Engl, transl., 
1 886 ; Aurivillii, Dissert, in Gen. xlix. ; ed. J. H. Michaelis, 
1790 ; L. Diestel (Gen. xlix.), 1853 ; J. P. Land, 1858 ; Papers 
on the Cosmogony of Genesis, by J. D. Dana, and S. E. Driver, 
in the Andover Review and the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1887, 1888 ; 
and A. Kohut, The Zendavesta and the First Eleven Chapters 
of Genesis, in Jewish Quarterly Review for 1890 (April). 



§ 2. Exodus. 

1. The name Exodus is derived through the Latin 
from the Greek Version. The Hebrew title of the 
book (JT)ft£> or n'lDtp n^X1.) is taken from its opening 
words. The Greek word, Latinized Exodus, signifies 
" departure" and occurs in Heb. xi. 22, in allusion to 
the event which forms the main subject of this book. 
It, or portions, have occasionally received different 
names, as " The Second Booh " (Sota, 36 h), The Book 
of Injuries (PR't}) after Exod. xxi., xxii. The book 
divides itself naturally into two parts. I. Chap, i.-xviii. 
describe (a) the oppression of Israel in Egypt, the 
history of Moses, his mission to Pharaoh, the plagues 
sent upon Egypt, i.-xii. 36 ; (b) the exodus from 
Egypt, the overthrow of the Egyptians, and Israel's 
arrival at Sinai (chap. xii. 37-xviii.). II. (a) The 
encampment before Sinai (chap, xix.), the giving of 
the Law (chap, xx.-xxiv.). (b) The directions respect 
ing the Tabernacle, with its priests and sacrifices 
(chap, xxv.-xxxi.) (c) The making of the golden calf, 
Israel's punishment, the giving of the new tables 



110 THE SEVERAL BOOKS 

(chap, xxxii.-sxxiv.). (d) The erection of the Taber- 
nacle and its dedication (chap, xxxv.-xl). 

2. The four documents, as well as the hand of an 
editor, can be also traced throughout Exodus. The 
variation in the names of God, -which is a notable 
mark of the documents in Genesis, disappears after 
Exod. vi. 2, 3. After that narrative the name 
Jehovah is systematically employed by the Editor as 
the peculiar name of God assumed in relation to the 
covenant with Israel. But the several documents, 
though la eking that peculiar mark, are still distinguish- 
able by the use of particular words, phrases, etc. The 
attempt, however, to specify each document too nicely 
has often led to hyper-criticism. 

3. Besides the commentaries mentioned in chap. xi. 10 J, are 
the English commentaries of Kalisch, 1855 ; J. G. Murphy, 
1866; the additional notes in the English translation of Lange, 
by C. M. Mead, the American scholar ; G. A. Chadwick, in 
Expositor's Bible, 1888 ; G. Eawlinson, in Pulpit Commen- 
tary, 1882. Important matter is contained in Kohlers Bibl. 
Gesch., 1875; Bertholdt, Be. rebus a Mos. in Egypt, gest.. 
1795 ; Braunius, Vest, sacerd. Heb., 1698 ; Birks, Exodm of 
Israel, 1863; Palmer's Besert of the Exodus, 2 vols., 1871 ; 
H. Brugsch-Bey, L'Exode et les Monuments Egyptiens, 1875 ; 
also his Gesch. Agypt. unter den Pharaonen, 1877 ; the supple- 
mentary volume to Bunsen's Bibelwerk, 1860 ; F. W. Thayer, 
Hebrews and the Bed Sea, 1883 (Amer.) ; J. Baker Greene, 
Hebrew Migration from Egypt, 3rd edit., 1883 ; J. P. Peters 
The Ten Words mJourn. ofExeg. Soc. (Amer.), 1886 ; G. Ebers, 
Bureh Gosen nach Sinai, 1872, 1881 ; E. Nestle, Bie Eintheilung 
des Bekalogs, 1880 ; A. Edersheim, The Exodus and the Wan- 
derings in the Wilderness; 



OF THE PENTATEUCH. Ill 

§ 3. Leviticus. 

1. The name given to this book is a Latinization of the 
Greek title (Acvltlkov). In Hebrew the book is called 
K"3f?*l, from the opening word. It is also called in the 
Talmud D'jq* niifl the Law of the Priests; nmyr\ mjin 
the Law of the gifts, or offerings. The book consists 
of four parts : I. The laws concerning sacrifices in 
general (chap, i.-vii.). II. The consecration of Aaron 
and his four sons, with the punishment of the two 
eldest of these, Nadab and Abihu (chap, viii.-x.). 
III. Laws concerning (a) the clean and unclean in 
food (chap, xi.) ; personal uncleanness, especially cases 
of leprosy (chap, xii.-xvi.). (b) The Day of Atonement 
(chap. xvi.). IV. (a) Laws concerning purity in 
various forms, including chastity, precepts partly 
moral and partly ceremonial (chap, xvii.-xix.). Punish- 
ments for idolatry and unchastity (chap. xx.). Ordi- 
nances as to the persons and ministrations of the 
priests, and concerning sacrifices (chap, xxi., xxii.). 
(I) Laws concerning the festivals (chap, xxiii.); the 
lights of the sanctuary and the shewbread (chap, 
xxiv. 1-10). The history of a blasphemer and his 
punishmsnt (chap. xxiv. 10-23). The Sabbatic year, 
and the Jubilee 'chap. xxv.). A chapter of blessings 
and cursings (chap, xxvi.), closing with a kind of 
appendix containing laws about vows, tithes, and 
things devoted to Jehovah (chap, xxvii.). 

2. The book is considered in the main to have been 
taken from the Priests' Code, to which chap, i.-xvi. 
with chap. xxvi. are generally assigned. There is 
much which appears fragmentary, and which favours 



112 ,THE SEVERAL BOOKS 

the idea that the code of laws here given was added 
to from time to time when deemed necessary. The 
book presents peculiar difficulties in several of its 
details ; but such facts are in themselves evidences of 
its great antiquity. As a product of the time after 
the exile it would be a gross, anachronism. Its im- 
portance in relation to the New Testament doctrine 
cannot be too' highly estimated; but the details of 
the sacrifices have often been arbitrarily explained as 
setting forth Ne^w Testament doctrines. The writings 
of the priest-prophet Ezekiel necessarily contain 
numerous references to the legislation of the book 
of Leviticus. \ 

3. The leading commentaries on Leviticus have been already 
mentioned (see pp. 103, 104). Kalisch's Commentary, vol. i., 
1867, vol. ii., 1872, is important from a critical point of view. 
Commentaries like those of H. Bonar, 1846, do not face 
critical difficulties. There are many monographs of im- 
portance, such as : Benzinger, Ber grosse Versolinungstag, 
Lev. xvi., in Zeitschrift fur A. T. Wissenschaft, 1889 ; Klos- 
termann, TJeber die Kalendarische Bedeutung des Jobeljahrs 
(in the Stud. u. Kritik., 1880) ; J. J. Stahelin, Gescli. des 
Stammes Levi (in Zeitschrift d. B. M. G., 1855) ; Graf, id. 
(in Merx, Archiv, 1869) ; Kuper, das Priesterthum des -Alt 
Bund, 1865. S. H. Kellogg is the writer on Leviticus in the 
Expositor's Bible, 1891. S. I. Curtiss' works, Be Aaron, 
sacerd. orig., 1878, and his Levitieal Priests, 1877, are of 
special importance. H. L. Strack's Comm. on Genesis to 
Leviticus is promised in 1891. 

§ 4. Numbers. 

1. The name in the Hebrew Bible is **5*P5, " In 
the Wilderness" from the fifth word of chap. i. 1. It 
is, however, also designated from its initial word 



OF THE PENTATEUCH. 113 

"•3T5. The appellation Numbers is a translation of 
'ApiOfxoim the LXX., adopted also by the Vulgate. In 
the Babl. Talmud (Sota, 36 b) it is called Dnapsm nap, 
or DH-lpan t^in, which are of similar import. Each 
book of the Pentateuch is termed ^£>in or GPO-in, 
a fifth. The Book of Numbers is so called because 
it contains the accounts of two numberings of the 
people; the first made in the second year of the 
Exodus, the second in the fortieth. The book is most 
suitably divided into four parts. I. The first portion 
contains chiefly the census (chap, i.-iv.) ; laws about 
purity, and about the Nazarites, concluding with the 
priestly blessing (chap, v., vi.) ; the offerings of the 
princes at the dedication of the altar (chap, vii.) ; the 
purification of the Levites (chap, viii.); the law of the 
supplementary passover (chap, ix.); the cloudy pillar, 
and the directions as to the times and manner of 
journeying (chap. ix. 15-x.). II. The second portion 
comprises the history of the journeyings of Israel, in- 
cluding the surveying of the land of Canaan, the people's 
refusal to enter the land, the march back to the wilder- 
ness, and various rebellions, inclusive of that of Korah, 
Dathan and Abiram, which formed the leading events 
in the history of Israel from the second year to the 
beginning of the fortieth. Divers laws given during 
this period are set forth in this part of the book, which 
includes chap. xi.-xix. III. The third part relates the 
events of the first ten months of the fortieth year, 
the toilsome march round Edom, the death of Aaron 
(chap, xx.) ; the conquest of the land of the Amorites 
and of Bashan (chap, xxi.) ; the episode of Balaam 
(chap, xxii.-xxiv.). IV. The fourth and last comprises 

8 



1U THE SEVERAL BOOKS 

the account of the sin of Baal-peor (chap, xxv.) ; the 
second census (chap, xxvi.); laws about inheritance 
(chap, xxvii. 1-11 and xxxvi. 1-12); laws of offerings 
and vows (chap, xxviii.-xxx.) ; the vengeance taken 
on the Midianites, and the laws concerning spoil 
(chap, xxxi.) ; the settlement of Israel on the country 
east of Jordan, and the laws of the cities of refuge 
(chap, xxxii.-xxxv.). The closing chapter (chap, xxxvi.) 
is supplementary. 

2. The Book of Numbers is considered to have been 
chiefly composed of the Priests' Code, with large 
additions, however, from the work of the Jehovist 
or prophetic narrator, especially the sections about 
Balaam (chap, xxii.-xxiv.). All the four documents 
are fairly considered to be discoverable in the book, 
but there are wide differences of opinion as to 
details. 

3. The best commentaries have been named in the fore- 
going sections. The Speaker's Commentary is of interest (see 
p. 104), and Dillmann's Commentary on Numbers to Joshua, 
1886, deserves special attention. Monographs on portions of 
the book : on Balaam and his Prophecies, by E. W. Hengsten- 
berg, 1842, English translation published by T. and T. Clark ; 
by H. Oort, 1860 ; Kruger, Les oracles de Balaam, 1873 ; 
M. M. Kalisch, Bible Studies, Part i., Prophecies of Balaam, 
1877. See Kohler's work, noticed at p. 103. 



§ 5. Deuteronomy. 

1. The name Deuteronomy ("Second Law") is 
derived from the incorrect rendering given in the 
LXX., chap. xvii. 18, to BcvrepovofiLov tovto, for the 



OF THE PENTATEUCH. 115 

phrase correctly translated in the A.Y., " a copy of the 
law," but which was incorrectly supposed to refer to 
the whole book itself. The Hebrew name (D*"Q^n n £*? 
or B*"!?^) is taken from the second word in chap. i. 1., 
viz. " words," or from the two opening, " these are the 
words." The name AcvTcpovofjuov occurs in the Ep. 
of Barnabas x., and in Hippolytus as used by Simon 
Magus (Hcer., vi., 15, 16). In theMassorah the Hebrew 
name rrpn np.tpi?, or rninn n#p, from Deut. xvii. 18, 
is also assigned as the name of the book. The book 
consists mainly of addresses of Moses to the people. 
I. A rehearsal of the history of Israel from Horeb to the 
Jordan (chap, i.-iv. 40), closing with a supplementary 
recital (ver. 41-49). II. A second address commenc- 
ing with a recital of the Decalogue, and followed by 
exhortations grounded thereon (chap, v.-xxvi.). The 
second portion of this address, from chap, xii.-xxvi. 15, 
is not likely to have actually formed part of the 
speech delivered, but was added afterwards in writ- 
ing. III. The opening portion of the third address 
(chap, xxvii.) seems likewise not to have been spoken, 
but written down; chap, xxviii., however, looks like 
the peroration of a great prophecy. IY. Chap, xxix., 
xxx. formed portions of another prophetic address; 
chap. xxxi. contains Moses' charge to Joshua. , Y. The 
book closes with a description of Moses' last days, into 
which the SoDg of Moses (chap, xxxii.) and his 
Blessing of the tribes (chap, xxxiii.) are embedded. 

2. The Book of Deuteronomy was evidently intended 
for the people, and not for the use of the priests 
alone. New laws are laid down, old laws are abro- 
gated. Compare the law of the one sanctuary na 



116 THE SEVERAL BOOKS 

compared with the earlier legislation (chap. xii. 5-14 ; 
comp. Exod. xx. 24). The usage mentioned in Exod. 
xxiv. 5 was afterwards abrogated by the directions 
given concerning the priests and Levites. Changes 
are introduced even into the Decalogue (chap. v. 15, 
21). It is incorrect to say that the law of the one 
sanctuary was unknown till Hezekiah's time, for it 
underlies all the arrangements as to the Temple made 
by David and Solomon. 2 Kings xxii. records the 
discovery of this book in the house of the Lord, the 
sacred books having been, no doubt, generally destroyed 
during the persecution in the days of Manasseh. The 
theory that the book itself was first written at that 
period is now abandoned by the best critics. It is a 
matter of great doubt as to when Deuteronomy 
received its final shape. It is probable that it was 
added to throughout in later times. But, as a 
whole, it bears marks of unity of composition, ex- 
clusive, of course, of the two poems at the close of the 
work. 

3. In addition to the works already mentioned, pp. 103, 104, 
see Ed. Riehm, Die Gesetzgebung Jlosis im LandeMoab, 1854. 
F. W. Schulz, Das Bent, erld., 1879, is a work of over 700 pp. 
The defence of the Mosaic authorship has been abandoned by 
him in Die Schopfungsgeschichte, etc., 1865. P. Kleinert, Das 
Deuteronomium u. der Dettteronomilcer, 1872. Ad. Zahn, Das 
Deuteronomium ; eine Sehutzschrift wider Jlodem-Xritisches 
L'nwesen, 1890. Of the older writers most important are : 
Lorinus, Comm., 1625, 1628; Masius, in frit. Sacri ; AltiDg, 
Opera, torn. i. ; Yitringa, Comm. ad Cant. Mosis, 1734 ; and on 
the latter song (Deut. xxxii.) : J. A. Dathe, Opusc., ed. Rosen- 
miiller, 1796. More modern monographs on Deut. xxxii., 
are those of W. Volck, 1861 ; Kamphausen, 1862 ; A. 
Klostermann, in Stud. u. Krit., 1S71, 1872 ; Flockner, 1876; 



OF THE PENTATEUCH. 117 

and on Deut. xxxiii., K. H. Graf., Per Segen Mosis, 1857 ; 
W. Volck, 1873. The connection between Deuteronomy and 
the Prophets is discussed among other works in C. J. 
Bredenkamp, Gesetz und Propheten, 1881 ; Marti, Die Spuren 
d. sogen. Grundsclirift d. Hex. in den vorexil. Proph. (Jalirl). 
f. Prot. TheoL, vi., 1880) ; F. E. Konig, Per Offenbarungslegriff 
des alt. Test. (2 vols.), 1882, etc. 



CHAPTER Xni. 

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 

§ 1. The Book of Joshua. 

1. f I THE name of Joshua was originally 2£in 
-L Hoshea, "salvation" (Num. xiii. 8, 6), a name 
borne by the last king of Israel (2 Kings xv. 30), 
and by the prophet of the northern kingdom, though 
variously transliterated in our A.V. That name 
was afterwards changed to S^tHJ (twice written plene 
JWBin^ Deut. iii. 21 ; Judges ii. 7), which signifies 
Jahaveh is salvation, or Jahaveh saves. Comp. #-1£ ; v$, 
the name of one of David's sons (2 Sam. v. 15), akin 
to y^V£, the name of the great prophet Elisha. The 
latter form, W^), is written by the LXX. and in later 
Greek 'Itjotovs (Acts vii. 45 ; Heb. iv. 8). 

The Book of Joshua is the concluding portion of 
the Hexateuch. In the Hebrew canon it is the first 
of those books grouped together under the designation 
of the " former prophets " (d^12>K"» DW3J). The 
historical books from Joshua to 2 Kings are embraced 
under that title, with the single exception of the 
Book of Ruth. 

2. The Book of Joshua may be divided into three 
parts. I. Chap, i.-xii. give an account of the con- 
quest of Canaan. II. Chap, xjii.-xxii. describe the 



THE BOOK OF JOSHUA. 119 

division of the land among the tribes. III. The two 
closing chapters (xxiii. and xxiv.) contain the last 
speeches of Joshua, and an account of the deaths of 
Joshua and Eleazar. 

3. The Book of Joshua is so called after the name 
of the great captain whose exploits it records. It 
does not profess, however, to have been written by 
him, although ascribed to him by Jewish and Christian 
commentators prior to the rise of the modern school of 
Biblical criticism. Internal evidence is opposed to the 
opinion of the older authorities. No conclusion as to 
the late date of the book can, however, be drawn from 
its language, although that line of argument was at 
one time adopted by critics. But the book records 
events which occurred after the death of Joshua, such 
as the capture of Hebron by Caleb, and of Kiriath 
Sepher by Othniel (comp. Josh. xv. 13-17 with 
Judges i. 9-13). Several facts mentioned in the book 
show that it must have been written very early. Ai, 
or Aiath, was in ruins at the time of the writer (chap, 
viii. 28), although in existence as a town in the days 
of Hezekiah. The story of the Gibeonites must have 
been earlier than the attempt made to root them out 
by Saul (Josh. ix. 27). The reference to the Jebusites 
in Jerusalem (chap. xv. 63) appears earlier than the 
time of David. The statement that the Canaanites 
dwelt in Gezer (chap. xvi. 10) must also have been 
earlier than the conquest of Gezer in the days of 
Solomon (1 Kings ix. 16). These facts are in favour 
of the great antiquity of the entire Hexateuch. If the 
Hexateuch concluded with Joshua, its composition 
must have been long prior to the Exile. The Book 



120 TEE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 

of Joshua is seldom assignod to a later date than 
the days of Jeremiah. But it is hard on any fair 
line of argumentation to defend the composition of 
such a book at that period. 

3. The documents used in the composition of the 
Pentateuch have been traced also in the Book of 
Joshua. In the first part of the book the Jehovist 
is conspicuous; in the afterparts the Priests' Code, 
and even the Deuteronomist. Other documents were 
also made use of. The Book of Jashar is referred to 
in chap. x. 13. There are difficulties in connection 
with several of the statements in the Book of Joshua, 
but the difficulties have often been exaggerated. The 
expulsion of the Canaanites and the conquest of the 
land by Israel are often referred to in the later books. 
The miracles narrated in the book have also been 
often grossly exaggerated. Orthodox scholars, like Dr. 
E. W. Hengstenberg, have long ago pointed out that, 
although the victory gained at Gibeon (chap, x.) was 
brought about by supernatural causes, it is not neces- 
sary to assert as an historical fact that the sun or the 
moon stood still on that occasion. 

4. Among the special commentaries on Joshua may "be 
named the work of Masius, a Eoman Catholic scholar, 1574, 
still in high repute ; that of J. Clericus in Comm. in Zibb. Hist., 
1708 ; Osiander, 1681 ; Corn, a Lapide (Roman Catholic), 
Josh.-2 Parol. 1642; C. a Lapide was an able expositor, 
and wrote commentaries on nearly all the books of the 
Bible. Maurer, Comm. ilber Josua, 1831 ; Eosenmiiller, 
ScJwlia, 1833 ; Keil, 1847 (Joshua, Richter, und Ruth), 
1863 : English translation publ. by T. i and T. Clark. 
Knobel (Numb. -Josh,), 1861 ; Dillmann (Numb. -Josh.'), 1886; 
Himpel on the unity and credibility of book, in Tub. Theol. 
Quartalschr,, 1864 ; Hollenberg, die deut. Bestandtheile in 



THE BOOK OF JOSHUA. 121 

Stud. u. Kr., 1874 (see other Commentaries on Hex. noted 
in chap, xi.) ; G. F. Maclear, 1883, in Cambridge Bible ; J. 
Lloyd, Booh of Joshua, Crit. and Expos. Comm., 1886, useful 
for students, but not up to date ; J. J. Lias has written on 
the book in the Pulpit Commentary, 1881, and Canon Espin 
in the Speaker's Commentary. The Booh of Joshua by Rev. 
Principal Douglas, D.D. (T. and T. Clark), 1890 ; T. J. Conant, 
Hut. Boohs of the Old Test. (Joshua to 2 Kings) ; Introduc- 
tions, common version revised, and occasional Notes, New 
York, 1884. See Appendix. 

5. The Samaritans possess among writings peculiar 
to them a Book of Joshua, attention to which was 
first called by Scaliger. The MS. of this work, which 
he brought to Europe, is in the University Library 
at Leyden. The work has been edited by Juynboll, 
under the name Ghronicon Samaritanum, 1848. It 
is in Arabic, written in the Samaritan character, and 
contains an epitome of Israelitish history during the 
last days of Moses. Its opening chapters correspond 
with Num. xxii.-xxxii. Next follows the Book of 
Joshua according to the Hebrew, with, however, 
several additions and legends. . According to these 
Samaritan additions, Joshua built the temple on 
Mount Gerizzim. The work is post-Christian in date, 
for it contains in its closing portion a history of the 
Samaritans to the time of the Emperor Alexander 
Severus. There is, also, another work of the Sama- 
ritans, entitled, The Book of Joshua, composed by 
Abulfatch, in the year of the Hejira 756. The latter 
work, which is of no historical value, has been edited 
by Vilmar, with a Latin translation and commentary, 
1865, and is interesting from the Samaritan history 
It contains. 



122 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS 

§ 2. The Book of Judges. 

1. The Book of the Judges, CM?§KP, Kpirat (eomp. Acts 
xiii. 20), receives its name from the heroes who "judged 
Israel." These were noted for their martial prowess 
in repelling the assaults made either by various nations 
in the proximity of Canaan, who sought to enslave 
the new settlers in that land, or by the aboriginal popu- 
lations, who were but partially subdued, and possessed 
still many portions of the country. The Hebrew 
"Judges" administered justice in times of peace, and 
acted as generals in time of war. They were, there- 
fore, akin to the Suffetes, who, after the overthrow 
of royalty in Tyre, acted as rulers there, as also in 
Carthage (Liv. Hist., xxx. 7). The title is identical. 
The Suffetes at Carthage were sometimes styled by 
the Romans reges, consules, and dictators. 

2. The Book of Judges is composed of three parts : 
I. The first portion (chap, i.-ii. 5) is introductory, 
describes the conquest of certain parts of the land, 
and gives a list of the cities which had not yet ccme 
into the possession of the Israelites. It is open 
to serious question whether the rebuke of Israel at 
Bochim was administered by a prophet or by an angel. 
The Hebrew phrase, niiT^K^Dj messenger, or angel of 
Jehovah, is ambiguous ; but the expression " came 
up from Gilgal to Bochim " coincides better with the 
former explanation. II. The second portion of the 
book consists of chap. ii. 6 to xvi. inclusive. This 
part is closely connected with Josh. xxiv. 28 It 
records the history of Israel from the death of Joshua 
to that of Samson, and also commences with an intro- 



THE BOOK OF JUDGES. 123 

duction in prophetic style (chap. ii. 16-iii. 6), after 
which follow sketches of twelve or fifteen Judges, of 
the greater number of whom very little account is 
given. (1) Othniel of the tribe of Judah, chap. iii. 
7-11. (2) Ehud of the tribe of Benjamin, chap, 
iii. 12ff. (3) Shamgar, chap. iii. 31. (4 and 5) 
Deborah of Ephraim and Barak of Naphtali, chap, 
iv., v. (6) Gideon of Manasseh, chap, vi.-viii. (7) 
Abimelech, son of Gideon's maid-servant; a petty king, 
not probably one of the Judges, chap. ix.. (8) Tola 
of Issachar, chap. x. 1, 2. (9) Jair of Gilead, chap. 
x. 3, 4. (10) Jephthah of Gilead, chap, xi., xii. 
(11) Ibzan of Bethlehem, chap. xii. 8. (12) Eton of 
Zebulon, chap. xii. 11, 12. (13) Abdon of Ephraim, 
chap. xii. 13-15. (14) Samson of Dan, chap, xiii.- 
xvi. By the omission of the names of Deborah and 
Abimelech, the total number has often been reduced 
to twelve. No weight, however, is assigned to the 
number twelve in the book, and it is doubtful whether 
the name of Shamgar be not an interpolation. Bedan, 
who is mentioned in 1 Sam. xii. 11, is either to be 
identified with Barak (which is the reading found in 
that passage in the LXX. and Syr.), or possibly may 
be the same as Abdon. It is a matter of uncertainty 
whether the rule of the Judges mentioned in the book 
was consecutive or contemporaneous, and the book 
does not afford data enough for the solution of the 
question. III. The third portion of the book (chap, 
xvii.-xxi.) contains two remarkable narratives, (a) 
The first recounts the circumstances which led to the 
image worship set up at Dan, chap, xvii., xviii. ; 
and (b) the second tells of the u deed of shame " 



124 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 

performed at Gibeah, and the subsequent "holy war" 
against Benjamin, chap, xix.-xxi. The events re- 
corded in the former must have occurred at a very 
early period, prior to the narratives recorded after 
chap. iii. 12. See chap, xviii. 1, although if this be 
correct, chap, xviii. 31 contains a later gloss. The 
second narrative must also be assigned to a very early 
period, according to chap. xx. 28. 

3. The Book of Judges, though probably put- together 
by a single editor, contains histories proceeding from 
different authors. The opening words, " and it came 
to pass after the death of Joshua," may be a later 
addition, inserted in order to unite the book with the 
preceding Book of Joshua. The Song of Deborah and 
Barak affords abundant proof of having been com- 
posed shortly after the date of the event celebrated. 
It has been conjectured that the Book of Judges 
originally contained the history of Eli and Samuel. 
The date of the composition of the work is uncertain, 
for the reference in chap, xviii. 30 to " the captivity 
of the land" may be a later gloss, or may contain 
a faulty reading. " The captivity of the land" must 
mean the Assyrian captivity, and hence if those words 
be genuine the work must have been composed after 
that period . But the thorough knowledge shown of the 
topography of Palestine is sufficient to prove the book 
to have been written by an inhabitant of the country, 
and therefore it cannot well have been composed 
during the Babylonian Exile. Several of the events 
recorded in the book are alluded to in Psalms lxxviii. 
and lxxxiii. The " iniquity of Gibeah " is referred to 
in Hosea ix. 9, x. 9. 



THE BOOK OF JUDGES. 125 

4. The commentaries on Judges are numerous. Among the 
most important are those of Clericus ; Drusius, 1586 ; Schmidt, 
1684 ; Rosenmiiller, Scholia, 1835 ; G-. L. Studer, Das Buck 
der Richter, 1S35 j 2nd edit., 1842 ; E. Bertheau, Rlchter, 
u. Ruth, 1845 ; 2nd edit., 1883 ; Paulus Cassel, in Lange's 
Bibelwerh. 1865, 2nd edit., 1887 ; Bachmann, Richter, I. i.-v. 
1868, 1S69. Keil (see pp. 6, 7) ; H. Ewald (see p. 7), and 
A. Kohler (p. 103), in their historical works ; as well as S. 
Davidson, Stahelin, Bleek, Wellhausen, in their Introductions 
(p. 8) ; also the latter in his Gesch. Israel, i., 1878. E. Reuss, 
Gesch. d. heili/j. ScJiriften, 1889; see on the book Oehler, 
Theologie des A. T., 2nd edit., 1882 ; English transl. by T. and 
T. Clark. Wahl, TJeber den Verf. des B. der Richter, 1859 ; 
K. A. Auberlen in Stud. u. Krit, 1860 ; J. J. Lias, Booh of 
Judges, in Cambridge Bible for Schools, 1890. G. C. M. 
Douglas, The Booh of Judges, T. and T. Clark, 1881. It. A. 
Watson, Judges and Ruth in Expositor's Bible. Lord A. C. 
Hervey (Bishop of Bath and Wells) has written on Judges in 
Pidpit Commentary, 1881 ; and also in the Speaker's Com- 
mentary, 1872. T. Skat Rordam, Libri Judicum et Ruth, sec. 
vers. Syr.-Hexaplarem, 1861, is useful ; also K. Budde, Die 
Biicher Richter u Samuel, ihr Quellen und ihr Aufbau, 1890; 
A. Kohler, Lehrb. d. Bill. Gesch. ii.. pp. 21-121, 1884. 

The Song of Deborah has produced a large number of 
monographs. Among the most important are Schnurrer, 
Dissert, philol. critical, 1790 ; Hollmann, 1818 : Kalkar, 1833 ; 
H. H. Kemink, 1840 ; v. Gumpach, Alt. Test. Studien, 1852 ; 
E. Meier, 1859; Dr. J. W. Donaldson, Booh of Jashar, 2nd 
ed., 1860 ; Bottcher, Der Debora-Gesang u. das Holielied, 1850 ; 
H. Ewald, Die Dichtcr d. alt. Bundes, I., 1866 ; Hilliger, 
1867; Aug. Miiller, 1887. On other points, see K. Budde, on 
Richter und Josua in Zeitschrift fur die A. T. Wissenschaft 
for 1887, and Stade himself in the same for 1881. Also by 
Bndde, Die Anhdnge des Richterbuchesva. the same Zeitschrift 
for 1888 ; W. Bohme, Die dlteste Darstellung in Richt. vi. 
11-24 und xiii. 2-24, in same Zeitschrift for 1S85. S. R. 
Driver, Origin and Structure of the Booh of Judges, in Jewish 
Quarterly Review for April 1889. 



126 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 

§ 3. The Book of Ruth. 

1. The Book of Ruth (rvn, "PovO) in the Hebrew 
canon does not immediately follow the Book of Judges, 
but is one of the five Megilloth or " Rolls" which 
form part of the Hagiographa, or D*3irD, which 
is the last division of the Hebrew canon. In it 
the book follows immediately after Psalms, Proverbs, 
Job. The LXX. and Josephus place Ruth imme- 
diately after Judges. The events of the book occurred 
about a century before the time of David. The 
genealogy at the end of the book is brought down to 
David. The book records the intermarriage of an 
Israelite with a Moabitess, which is sufficient to show 
that it is historical, and does not belong to the 
region of the poetical. After the Exile such a fact 
would not have been regarded as creditable to a pious 
Israelite. The historical character of the story is also 
confirmed by the friendly intercourse recorded between 
David and the king of Moab in 1 Sam. xxii. 3, 4. 
The so-called "Chaldaisms" found in the book are 
probably better regarded as instances of the spoken 
patois. The law of the levirate (Deut. xxv. 7-9) is 
not that referred to in chap. iv. 7. The genealogy at 
the end of the book may be incomplete, but even 
that point is open to dispute. ]S~o certain date can 
be assigned for the authorship of the book, only that 
it must have been written after the time of David 
and long prior to the Exile. 

2. The best older commentaries on Kuth are the se by Schmidt, 
Comm. in Lib. Ruth, 1696 ; Carpzov, Colleg. rail. lill. in HI. 
Ruth, 1703. Of the later critics, Eosenmiiller, Bertheaa, 



THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. 127 

Keil and P. ' Cassel, Auberlen, have been mentioned under 
Judges ; Metzger, Lib. Ruth ex Heb. in Lat. vers, perpet. 
inter p. illust. 1857 ; C. H. H. Wright, The Booh of Ruth in 
Heb. and Chald. with crit. text, and gram, and erit. comm., 
18G4 ; F. de Hummelauer (Roman Catholic), Comm. in Ubros 
Judicum et Ruth, 1888. J. Morison has written on Ruth 
in the Pulpit Commentary, 1881 ; and Lord A. C. Hervey, 
Bishop of Bath and Wells, in the Speaker's Commentary. 1881. 
See E. Reuss in Strassburger Revue, Band vii. 



§ 4. The Books of Samuel. 

1. These books are so called, not because Samuel 
was supposed to have been the author, but because 
that prophet is the most important character in the 
opening portion. The title is most unsuitable. In 
the LXX. the books are more correctly termed 
BacriAeiwv irptbrri, Sevrepa, First and Second Kings, 
which is their name in the Yulgate. The two books 
are in reality a single work, and are so regarded 
in Hebrew MSS. The division into first and second 
books was made after the introduction of print- 
ing, and was derived from the LXX. and Yulgate. 
According to the Talmud (Baha Bathra, 14 b , 15 a ), 
Samuel wrote Judges, Ruth, and Samuel. The re- 
ference made in 1 Chron. xxix. 29 to "the history of 
Samuel the seer," is somewhat doubtful. See remarks 
on Chronicles, p. 135. 

The Books of Samuel contain mainly the histories 
of Samuel, Saul, and David. I. 1 Sam. i.-xii. traces 
the history of Samuel down to his retirement from 
the position of a Judge over Israel. The history of 
Eii and his times is only incidentally narrated. II. 



128 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS, 

The history of Saul from his accession to the throne 
down to his death on Mount Gilbca, 1 Sam. xiii- 
2 Sam. i. Two important songs are contained in this 
part, (a) The Song of Hannah, 1 Sam. ii. 1-10 ; and 
e Lament of David over Saul and Jonathan, 
2 Sam. i. 19-27. III. The reign of David, 2 Sam. ii. 
to the end. The sources from whence the book was 
composed were partly oral and partly written. The 
Book of Jashar is referred to in 2 Sam. i. 18. One 
of the Psalms (Es. xviii.) with certain modifications 
appears in 2 Sam. xxii. The author of the Book of 
Chronicles mentions (1 Chron. xxvii. 24) " the chroni- 
cles of king David."' <; The history of Samuel the 
seer," ,; the history of ZSTathan the prophet."' and " the 
history of Gad the seer,*" are referred to in 1 Chron. 
xxix. 29 as authorities extant in the writer's day, for 
' ; the acts of David first and last."' There seems to 
have been a book written by Samuel which contained 
at least the law of the kingdom, 1 Sam. x. 25. It 
is therefore highly probable that the compiler of 
the Books of Samuel had those records before him. 
2 Sam. xxi.-xxiv. partakes of the character of an 
appendix to the work. 

2. The editor interwove into his narrative different 
accounts of the same transaction. Whether those 
accounts are necessarily discordant is quite another 
question. Some of the variations can be harmonised 
without dinicuity. e.g. the three accounts of Saul's 
elevation to the throne (chap, viii., ix. 1-x. 16. xi.). 
Other narratives, e.g. the accounts of David's first 
introduction to Saul are more difficult to bring into 
harmony. The compiler was, however, oy no means 



THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL. 129 

the simple-minded blunderer which some critics have 
represented him to have been. The text of the work is 
generally admitted to have come down to us in a very 
corrupt form (see 1 Sam. xiii. 1, and 2 Sam. xxi. 19). 
Arguments based, therefore, upon the numbers men- 
tioned in the book (e.g. 1 Sam. vi. 19), and even on 
the names of persons and places, must be received 
with caution. The text of the LXX. in many places 
differs much from the Hebrew. Many critical con- 
jectures have been made in the way of correcting 
the text, but the critics are very much divided in 
opinion. The book must have been composed after 
the division of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel 
(see 1 Sam. xxvii. 6), but was in the main drawn up 
probably not very long after that crisis. The work 
seems to have undergone revision at a later period, 
when it was brought into close connection with the 
Book of the Kings. It may have proceeded from 
several authors, but such points must ever remain, 
more or less, matters of pure conjecture. 

3. The best commentaries on the Books of Samuel are those 
of Seb. Schmidt, 1687, although it is verbose, extending over 
2,000 pp. 4to ; of Clericus, 1708 ; Hensler, Erlduterungen des 
1 Bucli, 1795 ; Thenius, Bie Buclier Sam. crJdart, 2te Ausg., 
1864 ; Keil, 2te Ann 1 ., 1864 ; English translation published by 
T. and T. Clark ; Erdmann, in Lunge's Bibefoverk, English 
translation published by T. and T. Clark, with notes by 
American scholars; Wellhausen, Ber Text der Bb. Samuelis 
untersucht, 1871 ; Himpel, Weber Widerspruche u. versch. 
Quellenschriften (Tub. Theol. Quartalschr.'), 1874; A. F. 
Kirkpatrick (Keg. Prof. Heb. at Camb.), 1 Samuel, 1885 ; 2nd 
Samuel, 1884, in Cambridge Bible ; B. Payne Smith in two 
vols, of the Pulpit Commentary, 1880. Klostermann's Bie 

9 



130 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 

Biicher Samuelis und der Konige, 1887 (in Strack and 
Zbckler's Kurzgefasstes JK.onvn.'), contains important critical 
remarks, but Driver's work, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the 
Books of Samuel, etc., 1890, is of more importance to the 
critic and scholar. F. de Hammelauer, (Roman Catholic), 
Comm. in Libb. Sam., Paris, 1886. Important is F. H. 
Woods, Light thrown on the LXX. Vers, of the Books of 
Samuel, Studia Bibl., vol. i. Oxford, 1885; C. H. Cornill, Bin 
elohistisch Bericht in 1 Sam. i.-xv. aufgezeigt, in Luthardt's 
Ztitschrift, 1885, and concluded in the Konigsberger Studien, 
Band i. ; K. Budde, SauVs Konig.mahl u. Verwerfung in 
Ztitschrift fiir A. T.Wissenschaft, 1888. The historical works 
of Ewald, Reuss, Kdhler, as well as the Introductions of 
Bleek, Davidson and others, with the articles in the larger 
Bible Dictionaries, ought not to be forgotten. W. G. Blaikie 
has published two vols, on First and Second Samuel in 
the Expositor's Bible. Also K. Budde, Die Biicher Richter 
u. Samuel, ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau, 1890. 

§ 5. The Books of the Kings. 

1. These two books formed originally one, under 
the title D*?/P ">§D (see Origen in Euseb. Hist. Eccl., 
vi. 25); but they were afterwards divided in the LXX., 
where they are designated respectively BacriXawv TpCrr] 
koX Teraprq, and so in the Vulgate 3 and 4 Kings. The 
division found in the LXX. was adopted in the printed 
Hebrew text from the Bomberg printed editions. In 
the MSS. and in the earliest printed editions the 
books appear as one. The narrative falls into three 
parts. I. The reign of Solomon, chap, i.-xi. II. A 
synchronical account of the kingdom of Judah and 
Israel until the captivity of Israel, 1 Kings xii.- 
2 Kings xvii. III. The history of the kingdom of 
Judah down to the Babylonian conquest and the exile 



THE BOOKS OF KINGS. 131 

of the people, 2 Kings xviii.-xxv. The compiler 
refers to the following sources from which his history 
was composed: (1) The book of the acts of Solomon, 

1 Kings xi. 41. (2) The books of the chronicles of 
the kings of Judah (1 Kings xiv. 29) up to the death 
of Jehoiakim. (3) The books of the chronicles of the 
kings of Israel up to the death of Pekah (see p. 134). 
The chronicles referred to were not the official 
records themselves, but probably books compiled 
therefrom, written shortly before the Exile. The 
constant expression used, " unto this day," has been 
fairly adduced as a proof of this conjecture. The 
latter phrase evidently presupposes the existence of 
the kingdom of Judah, and cannot refer to the Exile. 
The histories of Elijah and Elisha were taken from 
some other sources, and are among the most remark- 
able portions of the work. The histories of those 
two great prophets are in many respects singularly 
akin to the histories of John the Baptist and Christ 
in the New Testament. But Elijah's character 
and the work he performed in Israel, as set forth in 
the Book of Kings, towers in most respects far above 
that of Elisha. The latter prophet, however, appears 
to have made more provision, than his predecessor 
Elijah seems to have done, for the continuance of his 
work after his death. The religious object and design 
of the Book of Kings is fully apparent from the 
reflections made on the events recorded, especially in 

2 Kings xvii. The Book of Kings contains the only 
account of the history of the kingdom of Israel after 
the great disruption, for the Book of Chronicles gives 
no separate history of the northern kingdom. 



132 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 

2 Many of the old commentators are deserving of attention ; 
among the Fathers, especially Ephrem Syrus and Theodoret. 
Among the Reformers and the scholars of that century, the 
works of Bugenhagen and Strigelius deserve notice, and in 
the succeeding century those of Leonhardi, Sanctius, Schmidt, 
and Clericus. Among the special commentaries of this century 
on the book, the more important are those of Keil, 1845 and 
1864 ; and Thenius, 1849, 1873 ; Bahr, in Lange's Biblewerk; 
Klostermann (see on Samuel, p. 129). Many important con- 
tributions have been made on special points by Kern, Oehler, 
O. Wolff, H. Brandes, and Wellhausen. Most important on 
this book is the information given by Schrader in his Keilin- 
schriften inid das Alt-Test., ably translated by Rev. 0. C. 
Whitehouse, 18S5, 1888 (see p. 103). See also B. Stade, 
Geschichte des Yolkes Israel unter der Konigsherrschaft, 
1887 ; Dr. W. Wright (of British and Foreign Bible Society), 
The Empire of the Hittites, 2nd edit., 1886 ; J. R. Lumby, 
First Booh of Kings, with Introduction and Notes, 1886 ; 
Second Kings, 1887 : in Cambridge Bible for Schools. Useful 
for popular purposes is G. Rawlinson, Lives and Times of 
Kings of Israel and Judah, 1889. J. Hammond has written 
on 1 Kings in the Pulpit Commentary, 1881, Prof. G. Rawlinson 
on 2 Kings in the same work, and in the Speaker's Com- 
mentary. A. Edersheim, History of the Kings of Judah and 
Israel, 1880. J. Halevy, Manasse roi de Judah, in the Revue 
des Etudes Juives, 1881. 

§ 6. The Books of the Chronicles. 

1. The Books of the Chronicles are styled in Hebrew 
bVr>l *3f?, the Acts or Annals of the Days. In the 
Hebrew the two books form one great historical 
work. The LXX. divided the work into two books, 
styling them UapaXeL-rro/xeva, things passed over, 
or omitted. The Latin has followed the LXX. 
in the division of the book, but has retained 
the name Paralipomenon (genitive plur. after 



TEE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 133 

Liber) which is also used in the Douay Version. 
Jerome, in his Prologus galeatus, suggested the title 
Chronicon as preferable, whence the name Chronicles. 
The book supplements in several points that of the 
Kings, and is written even from a more distinctly 
religious and Levitical standpoint than the former 
work. Hence the history of the northern kingdom, 
which, by the sin of Jeroboam had apostatised from 
the covenant, is only given as far as it came into 
connection with that of Judah. The book is naturally 
divided into four parts. I. 1 Chron. i.-ix., consisting 
of genealogies from Adam, some of which are brought 
down to a date beyond the Captivity (see chap. iii.). 
Those genealogies present many difficulties, some of 
which are insoluble, owing to the absence of other 
data. The genealogies taken from Genesis are design- 
edly curtailed. Information, in addition to that found 
ill Genesis, is given in some instances. These facts 
give a peculiar importance to the later portions of 
those genealogies. II. 1 Chron. x.-xxix. gives the 
history of David, which is remaikable both for the 
omissions which occur in the narrative, and also for 
the many new facts recorded which are not given in 
the Book of the Kings. III. The reign of Solomon 
(2 Chron. i.-ix.), in which the omissions are many, 
and the additions, though few, are by no means 
wanting in signification. IV. The history of the 
kings of Judah up to the Captivity (2 Chron. x.- 
xxxvi.). The additions made in this portion are of 
special interest. 

2. The Book of Chronicles was composed after the 
Exile. It was not designed to be merely a supple- 



134 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 

merit to the Book of Kings. It is in several respects 
an independent history, and evidently not intended 
to supersede the Book of Kings, from which no 
inconsiderable portion of its contents is derived. 
Many sections agree almost verbally with that of the 
Kings, while the knowledge of the history contained 
in that book is presupposed in several places ; e.g. the 
reference to Elijah (2 Chron. xxi. 12-16) takes for 
granted that the reader is well acquainted with the 
history of that prophet. A knowledge of the sayings of 
Elijah and of the acts of Elisha is also presupposed 
in 2 Chron. xxii. 7, 8. Hence we cannot agree with 
those critics who suppose that the omissions in the 
work were made for the purpose of concealing facts 
discreditable to certain kings. The compiler of the 
work was probably a Levite interested in the music 
of the Second Temple. The sources of the history 
appear to have been numerous. The editor was 
acquainted with both the Books of Samuel and Kings 
in a somewhat similar form to that in which we have 
them, and he quotes from both. His authorities were : 
(1) The Booh of the Kings of Judah and Israel. This 
authority is frequently referred to. It is hard to decide 
whether several books are not quoted under that name. 
For " the book of the kings of Israel " is spoken of in 
2 Chron. xx. 34, and " the acts " or " history " of the 
kings of Israel in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18; the most 
common reference being to " the book of the kings 
of Judah and Israel " (2 Chron. xvi. 11, xxv. 26), or to 
"the book of the kings of Israel and Judah" (2 Chron. 
xxvii. 7, etc.). The "book or "history" referred to 
cannot be identified with the Book of Kings, because 



THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 135 

it contained histories of events not found in that 
work. (2) The history of Samuel the seer. This work 
may possibly have been the well-known Book of 
Samuel. (3) The history of Nathan the prophet. 
(4) The history of Gad the seer. All these are 
referred to in 1 Chron. xxix. 29; and the work of 
Nathan with (5) the prophecy of Ahijah, and (6) 
the visions of Iddo in 2 Chron. ix. 29 ; and the 
last-mentioned possibly in 2 Chron. xiii. 22. Iddo 
is also referred to in connection with the (7) 
history of Shemaiah, 2 Chron. xii. 15. (8) The 
history of Jehu the son of Hanani, 2 Chron. xx. 34. 
(9) The Midrash, or Commentary on the Book of 
the Kings, 2 Chron. xxiv. 27. But the translation 
"commentary" is doubtful. (10) A book of Isaiah 
about TJzziah, 2 Chron. xxvi. 22, as well as (11) 
the Vision of Isaiah, 2 Chron. xxxii. 32. (12) The 
history of Hozai, or of the Seers, 2 Chron. xxxiii. 19. 
It is, however, a matter of dispute whether some of 
those books may not be merely sections of a large 
history (compare the expression in Rom. xi. 2, kv 
'HAaa). The writer may have lived as late as the 
early portion of the Grecian period, as has been 
conjectured from his reference to- Persian coins 
(1 Chron. xxix. 7), and especially from the genealogy 
in 1 Chron. iii. 19-24, which is traced for several 
generations after ISTehemiah. The compiler probably 
lived a century after that governor. Some critics 
place the work as late as the early days of Alexander 
the Great. It closes abruptly in the middle of a 
sentence. The last three verses are identical with 
the three first of Ezra, in which latter place the 



136 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 

sentence left unfinished in the Chronicles is completed. 
The book may have been originally united with that 
of Ezra, and have proceeded from the same writer 
According to Jewish tradition Ezra was the com- 
piler; but the genealogy already referred to is opposed 
to that view. The text is considerably corrupted in 
some parts of the work, especially in the case of 
proper names, and in the numbers mentioned. Some 
critics consider the work inferior in historical credi- 
bility to the Kings. But the compiler, as already 
noted, actually presupposes in many cases an ac- 
quaintance with the former book, and the omissions 
in his history are not to be regarded as discrepancies. 
There are, however, many difficulties which become 
apparent on a careful comparison of the two books, 
and which are not yet capable of satisfactory solution. 

3. Most of the works recommended on the Kings can also 
be consulted with advantage on the Book of Chronicles. Many 
commentators have commented on both books. On the 
Book of Chronicles in particular the following works are 
of special importance : C. B. Michaelis, Annot. in Paralip. 
in his TTberiores Annot. in Sagiographa, 3 vols., 1719, 1720, 
and the later commentaries of Bertheau, 1854, 2te AufL, 
1873 ; Keil, 1870 ; Zockler, in Lange's Bibelwerk, 1874 ; 
in the English edition important additions have been made 
by American scholars. S. Oettli has written on Die ge- 
scliichtl. Hagiographa in Strack-Zochler 's Kurzgefasst. Komrz„ 
1889. The work of Klostermann, 1887 (see p. 129) must not 
be forgotten. Note also Caspari's monograph on the Syr.- 
JEphr. Krieg, mentioned under Isaiah. Useful for teachers 
is Rev. Dr. Murphy on The Boohs of the Chronicles, T. and T. 
Clark, 1880. Rev. Prof. P. C. Barker has written on 1 and 2 
Chron. in Pulpit Comvi. and C.J. Ball in Bp. Ellicott's Comm. 



EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. 137 

§ 7. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. 

1. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah are in Hebrew 
MSS. regarded as one, and are designated the Book of 
Ezra (see also Josephus, Against Apion, i. 8). In the 
later Hebrew Bibles, and in the LXX., the work was 
correctly divided into two books. In the LXX. the 
books are styled Second Esdras and Nehemiah. See 
remarks on pp. 138, 139. The Vulgate terms the 
two canonical books respectively First and Second 
Esdras. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, though 
proceeding from different authors, were, in all pro- 
bability, originally part and parcel of the Chronicles. 
Each of the two books falls into two sections. I. Ezra 
(a) chap, i.-vi. treats of the return of the exiles under 
Sheshbazzar, or Zerubbabel, B.C. 536, when Joshua 
was high priest, and of the rebuilding of the temple, 
accomplished in the sixth year of Darius, B.C. 516. 
The period is described in the contemporary writings 
of Haggai and Zechariah. (b) The second portion 
(chap, vii.-x.) relates the events which occurred half 
a century later. The second expedition from Babylon 
occurred in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes 
Longimanus (b.c. 458-457), and was led by Ezra to 
Jerusalem. On this occasion the expulsion of the 
foreign wives took place. More than* one-fourth of the 
exiles who returned with Zerubbabel did not belong to 
the tribes of Judah or Benjamin, but were members 
of the other tribes (see Wright's Bampton Lectures, 
p. 279). The number of individuals belonging to the 
other ten tribes was about 12,000, out of a gross total 
of 42,360. No impediment, as far as we know, was 



138 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 

placed in the way of the return of all the Israelites. 
Many thousands, no doubt, returned at a later period, 
although the bulk of all the tribes preferred to remain 
in the land of their dispersion. There is no full 
account of the Return, because a blank of a century 
and a half exists in the Jewish annals of the period. 
II. Rehemiah. (a) Neh. i.-vii. 73a relate his journey 
from Shushan in the twentieth year of the reign of 
Artaxerxes (b.c. 445-444), and the rebuilding of the 
walls of Jerusalem, (b) The second portion — Neh. 
vii. 736 to end — describes the work of the restoration 
of religion, brought about by the united efforts of 
Xehemiah and Ezra. This includes the solemn read- 
ing of the Law to all Israel (chap. viii. 1-12), the 
keeping of the Feast of Tabernacles (chap. viii. 13-18), 
the great confession (chap, ix.), the sealing of the 
covenant by the chiefs of the people (chap, x.), 
the list of the returned exiles (chap, xi., xii. 1-26), 
the dedication of the walls (chap. xii. 27-xiii. 3), 
and the correction of divers abuses (chap. xiii. 4-31). 

Considerable portions of the two books are no doubt 
derived from the memoirs of Ezra and Kehemiah ; 
but it does not follow that the books in their present 
shape were the works of those authors. A portion 
of Ezra (chap. iv. 8 to chap. vi. 18) with chap. vii. 
11-26 is written in Aramaic (Chaldee), see p. 193. 
The mention of Jaddua (high priest in the time of 
Alexander the Great) in Is eh. xii. 11, 22 seems to 
prove that the work must have been composed later 
than the time of Nehemiah. 

2. The apocryphal Book of Ezra requires some notice here. 
It is called in the LXX. and Syr. the First Book of Esdras 



EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. 139 

or Ezra, and is placed in those Versions immediately before 
Ezra, which is then called Second Esdras. In the Vulgate, 
however, the book is known as Third Esdras, and usually- 
placed along with Fourth Esdras at the end of the New Testa- 
ment along with the Prayer of Manasses, these three books 
not being regarded as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. 
The apocryphal Book of Ezra is for the most part a compilation 
out of 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah ; mainly, however, 
from the Book of Ezra. It is of some importance in connection 
with the criticism of the text of Ezra, although inferior in 
authority, and abounding in contradictory statements. The 
book seems to have been left unfinished. It contains some 
curious additions from unknown sources, the most interesting 
being the story of the three wise, men and their contest for 
the palm of wisdom before king Darius, as related in chaps, 
iii. and iv. Josephus made use of this book to the detriment 
of his own history. The writer in the extracts given from the 
canonical book, seems to have made use of the LXX. version, 
and not of the Hebrew original. The Fourth Book of Esdras 
or, as it is styled in the English Apocrypha, the Second Book 
of Esdras, is an apocalyptical production, and has no bearing 
upon the canonical book. 

3. Of the older commentaries on Ezra and Nehemiah, the 
best are those of Strigel, Ezra, 1571, Nehemiah, 1575 ; Clericus, 
in Comm. in Libb. Hist., 1733 ; J. H. Michaelis and J. J. Ram- 
bach, in Uberiores Nota in Hagiogr., vol. iii. Of the more 
modern, are the following: Bertheau, Ezra, Neh., Esth., 1862, 
and the new work based on Bertheau, but greatly modified 
by V. Ryssel, 1887; Kamphausen, in Bunsen's Bibdwerk, i. 
Abschn. 3; Keil, 1870; Schulz, Ezra-Esther, in Lange's Bibel- 
icerh, 1876, English edition with notes by American scholars; 
Bohme, Ueber d. Text ties Neh., 1871 ; A. F. Kleinert, TJeber 
die Entstehung, Bestandtheile, u. das Alter der BiicJier Ezr. 
u. Neh., 1832 ; Noldeke, Die alt.-test. Litteratur, 1868 ; Eb. 
Schrader, Die Bauer des zweiten Tempelbaues, in the Studien 
v. Kritihen, 1867. G. Rawlinson has written on Ezra, 
Nehemiah, and Esther, in Pulpit Commentary, 1880; and 
in Spteaker's Commentary. Smend, Die Listen der Biicher 



140 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 

Ezra und Nehemiah, 1881 ; Rabbi Saadiah, Commentary on, 
Ezra and Nehemiah, edited by H. J. Matthews, in Semitic series 
of Anec. Oxon., 1882. S. Oettli in Strach-ZocMcr's Komm., 1889. 
See also J. Halevy, Cyrus et le retour de Vexile, in the Revue 
des Etudes Juives, Paris, 1880. For Sayce, see p. 146. 

§ 8. The Book op Esther. 

1. The Book of Esther was written to explain the 
origin of the Feast of Purim (lots), and was possibly- 
intended by the writer to be read during that feast 
(chap. ix. 27). Whatever may be thought of the 
details of the story, it is impossible that a national 
feast like that of Purim could have originated in 
historical times without some adequate cause, such 
as that described in the book. This difficulty has 
induced some to maintain that the book was trans- 
lated from the Persian, and that the feast was the 
Persian feast Purdian. That view, however, though 
set forth by J. von Hammer in 1827, and lately 
revived by Vatke in his Hist. hrit. Einleitung in d. 
A. T., ed. by Preiss, is beset with more difficulties 
than the ordinary, and has found no real support 
among critics. The day of Mardoceus (Mordecai) is re- 
ferred to in 2 Mace. xv. 36. Ahasuerus was evidently 
Xerxes, though it is more than doubtful whether 
Esther can be identified with Amastris, the wife of 
Xerxes, mentioned by Herodotus, who may, however, 
have been Yashti. The rash temper of Ahasuerus 
and the Persian customs are correctly delineated in the 
story. The name of God does not occur in the book, 
probably because it was designed to be read in the 
Jewish houses during feasting, and it was deemed 
more reverential to omit, under such circumstances, 



THE BOOK OF ESTHER. 141 

direct mention of the name of God, for which the later 
Jews preferred to use divers circumlocutions (comp. 
" against heaven," Luke xv. 18). The book forms one 
of the five Megilloth, or " rolls." The author's ex- 
planations of Persian usages (chap. i. 13, iv. 11, viii. 8) 
have been often regarded as proofs of its composition 
at a later era. But this is by no means decisive ; for 
if the book was intended to be read in all the families 
of the Jews throughout the Persian empire, such 
explanations would be necessary. When the Feast 
of Purim was instituted, circular letters must have 
been sent round to the Jews of the dispersion, and 
no time could have been better suited for the appear- 
ance of the Book of Esther. The overruling power 
of Providence is the great lesson taught. The fact 
that the book was introduced into the canon much 
later is not at variance with the opinion that it was 
composed in the Persian period. 

2. The name of God or Jehovah does not occur in 
the Book of Esther. It has been calculated that in 
the book which contains 167 verses, the Persian king 
is mentioned nearly 190 times (the name Ahasuerus 
occurring 29 times). The fact has often been a 
stumbling-block. The book is omitted in the lists 
of the canonical Old Testament writings given by 
Melito. That omission may, however, have been 
accidental j but some have ascribed it to the cause 
just alluded to. The book is omitted also from the 
list given by Gregory of Nazianzen, and some of the 
Jewish Rabbis sought to exclude it from the canon 
(see Excursus II. to my Koheleth). Athanasius looked 
loldly on the work, ranking it with non-canonical 



142 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 

books (Epist. Fest.). Luther also suspected it. An 
ingenious attempt has been made by Dr. E. W. Bul- 
linger to discover " 77ie name of Jehovah in the Book of 
Esther." His pamphlet thus entitled was issued in 1 889, 
price 3d. To be had " from the author, Bremgarten, 
Woking." It is an exegetical curiosity. He asserts 
that " in the Book of Esther the name of Jehovah is 
given four times in an acrostic form." To these four 
" acrostics " Dr. Bullinger adds a fifth, in a later 
article in the " Quarterly Record of the Trinitarian 
Bible Society" for January, 1890. These " acrostics," 
according to Bullinger, are not "the mere work of 
man," but designed by the Holy Spirit ! They are 
discovered in the initials "read backwards" (Esther i. 
20) of the words urp Dnwri ^>m K*n ; in ch. v. 4 in the 
initials "read forward" of DVH |DiT1 itan WO*; in 
v. 13 in the final letters of the words h IW 133<K !"IT ; 
and similarly in the finals (vii. 7) of nmn vbx nr&D <3. 
The fifth "acrostic" is that of HSIN (Ex. iii. 14) 
" read backwards as well as forwards," in four out of 
the five words (vii. 5) of wn HT W HT Kin ! ! These 
" acrostics " are noted in some MSS. in the Massorah. 
The phenomenon thus noted has been observed 
before. In a volume of the series known as Bibliotheca 
Bremensis, or Bibliotheca Historico-Philologico-Theo- 
logica, classis quintse Fasc. prim. Amstelodamii, ap. 
Sam. Schoonwald mdccxxi. Fasc. sext. mdccxxii., at 
pp. 982-989, there is a short but interesting article 
entitled, Joachimi Christiani Jehring Observ. de locis 
quibusdam Pent, et lib. Esth. In it Jehring mentions 
that the Jews called such coincidences in initials or 
finals by the technical phrases Rashe Teboth and Sopht 



THE BOOK OF ESTHER. 143 

Teboth, and that they were accustomed to show especial 
respect when verses with such combinations of letters 
were read in their synagogues. The following is his 
list of the phenomena in the Pentateuch : Gen. i. 33 
with ii. 1 ; xi. 9, xii. 15, xix. 13, xix. 25, xxix. 24, 25, 
xxxviii. 7, xxxviii. 24, 25, xliii. 10, xliv. 3, 4 ; Exod. 
iii. 13, iv. 3, iv. 14, iv. 16, xii. 15, 16, xvi. 7, xvi. 22, 
xxv. 23, xxvi. 21, 22, xxxvi. 26, 27, xxxvii. 10; Lev. 
iv. 17, 18, v. 9, 10, viii. 15; ix. 9 in the initials " read 
backwards " of pS* DTHTINI n3TEi"l, also in the same 
verse in connection with the succeeding verse, in the 
initials "read forward" of :6nn DK1 t mTDn 11D^ ; in xiv. 
25, 26, xxi. 22; Num. i. 51 in the words, n:rQl D^n 
1DP priori, and also in same verse in n"lpn Ttm D^n 
riDV , v. 11, v. 18, xiii. 30, xiii. 32, xix. 12, xxiv. 13; 
Deut. ix. 19, 20, x. 7, xi. 2, xxiv. 5, xxx. 12, xxxii. 
38, 39. Jehring gives at the end of this list the 
four first cases in Esther. The phenomena, however, 
might easily be traced throughout the Bible (see 
1 Chron. v. 12; 1 Kings xviii. 4, etc.). 

According to Dr. Ballinger, the reason for conceal- 
ing the Divine name in Esther was that at the 
period of which it treats " God's face was hidden, 
hence His name was hidden " ! The conclusion is not 
very dissimilar from the argument which the Jews, 
according to Jehring, derived from the phenomena in 
Deut. xxx. 12. The initial letters of the words found 
there (nwwn )£> rhw *D) form n?*B, the common 
post- Biblical term for circumcision. The finals of the 
same words make mn\ Jehovah. The phrase is cor- 
rectly translated, " Who shall ascend (or go up) for 
us to heaven?" But the verb might be -regarded as 



144 TEE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 

causative, and so by some, ignorant of syntactical rules, 
the sentence was rendered " Who shall briny us up 
into heaven ? " The finals and initials taken together 
were interpreted as giving the reply to the question, 
namely, "Jehovah, i.e. through the circumcision." 

All such arguments are but " sacred trifling." 
Every Hebrew student knows that the three letters 
(i, l and n) employed in the composition of the 
Sacred Name are the most common letters in use in 
the language in the formation of pronominal suffixes, 
in nominal and verbal afformatives, post-positive or 
pre-positive. Consequently the number of cases in 
which such "acrostics" must occur in the Hebrew 
Scriptures is necessarily large ; and there is nothing 
surprising in the fact that ingenuity has been able 
to discover five such cases in the Book of Esther. 
It is of little consequence that the Massorah should, 
according to some MSS., have noted the facts. It 
is, however, well to caution the unwary against 
attaching any importance to such "discoveries." 

3. The Book of Esther in the LXX. version exhibits 
no little free handling of the original text, even in 
these portions which coincide for the most part with 
the Hebrew. The LXX. also contains considerable 
additions to the narrative. Jerome separated those 
additions in the Latin Vulgate from the other portions 
of the work, and placed them together at the end of 
the tenth chapter. In the English Apocrypha the 
additions are incongruously arranged as a separate 
book, entitled, "The Best of the Book of Esther." 
The order in which the portions are given in the 
English Apocrypha is that of the Latin Yulgate. 



THE BOOK OF ESTHER. Up 

The additions consist of the following pieces : (1) The 
dream of Mordecai, prophetical of the deliverance of 
the Jewish people, with an enlarged account of the 
conspiracy of the eunuchs, briefly recorded in the 
canonical Esther, ii. 21-23. This portion, which 
occupies in the English Apocrypha xi. 2-xii. 6, is in 
the LXX. placed at the opening of the book before 
chap. 1.1. (2) The exposition of Mordecai s dream, 
which occurs in the LXX. at the close of the work 
after chap. x. 4, is given in the English Apocrypha 
as the opening chapter of the separated portion, and 
entitled " Part of the Tenth Chapter after the Greek." 
The last verse of this (chap. x. 15 in the Greek, but 
chap. xi. 1 in the English Apocrypha) contains a 
curious but vague account of the introduction into 
Egypt of the letter enjoining the observance of the 
Feast of Purim. (3) The decree drawn up by Haman 
for the destruction of the Jews. This is inserted in 
the Greek between Esther iii. 13 and 14, but in the 
English Apocrypha occupies chap. xiii. 1-7. (4) The 
Prayer of Mordecai, which immediately follows in the 
English Apocrypha, occupying chap. xiii. 8-18, is given 
in the Greek after chap. iv. 17. (5) The Prayer of 
Esther, found in the English Apocrypha at chap. xiv. 
1-19, follows in the Greek immediately after that 
of Mordecai, in chap. iv. (6) The fuller account of 
Esther's interview with the king, given in the English 
Apocrypha at chap, xv., occurs in the Greek in the 
commencement of chap, v., before chap. v. 3 in the 
Hebrew. (7) The edict in favour of the Jevjs, which 
occupies chap. xvi. in the English Apocrypha, occurs 
in the Greek after chap. viii. 12. 

ie 



146 THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 

Besides all these, it ought to be noted that many 
important minor additions occur in the Greek through- 
out, and others in the Yulgate text of the portions not 
found in the Hebrew. The English reader will find 
the latter given in Churton's excellent edition of The 
Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures, 1884. The 
LXX. insert various names of God in the portions 
translated from the Hebrew {e.g., ch. vi. 1, 13) as 
well as in the additions made to the book. 

The additions have, as Vatke observes, a thoroughly 
Alexandrian character. Haman is styled a Macedonian, 
because, in the period to which the "additions" belong, 
the Macedonians were looked upon as oppressors. 
Several of the " additions " were known to Josephus. 

4. Several of the works of the older commentators on this 
book, such as that of Clericus, are still of value. Among the 
moderns may be mentioned Kelle, Vindieice Esther ce, 1820 ; 
Baumgarten, Be fide Esther ce comm. hist.-critica, 1839 ; Nickes, 
Be Esther ce lib. (2 vols.), Home, 1856 ; Bertheau, 1862 ; Keil, 
1870 ; Schultz, in Lange's Bibelwerk, 1876 ; Paulus Cassel, 
1878, full of information and interesting on many accounts. 
Not a few of his remarks breathe, as has been remarked, the 
very spirit of the Midrash. The English translation, by A. 
Berstein, published by T. and T. Clark, 1888, contains much 
new matter. J. S. Bloch, Hellenistische Bestandteile iin bibl. 
Schriftthum ; eine Ttr. Untersuchung, 1877, 2te Aufl., 1882. 
Ber histor. Hintergrund und d. Abfassungszeit d. Buches 
Esther in Gratz' Monatsschrift des Judcnthums for 1886. 
P. de Lagarde, Purlin, ein Beitrag zur Gesch. der Religion, 
1887, is learned, but fanciful. A. H. Sayce's Introd. to the 
Boohs of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, 1885, and B. Jacob's 
Bas Buck Esther bei dem LXX. in the Zeitschrift fur A. T. 
Wissenschaft, 1890, are important. 



U M 



CHAPTER XIV. 

THE POETICAL BOOKS. 

§ 1. The Book of Job. 

ANY of the assertions made concerning Job 
are based on pure conjecture. The name 
Job (^Vtf) is wholly unconnected with the name 
2V, written also Job in the Authorised Version, which 
occurs in Gen. xlvi. 13. In the Revised Version that 
name is, to avoid misconception, written lob. The 
name Job is of course equally out of connection with 
Jobab (33V), found in Gen. xxxvi. 33. The LXX. 
has, however, incorrectly identified it with the latter 
in the addition made in that Version to the book at 
the close of chap. xlii. The earliest passages of the 
Old Testament in which the patriarch Job is alluded to 
as a historical person are : Ezek. xiv. 14, 16, 20. The 
book is quoted by Jeremiah. Compare Jer. xx. 14 ff. 
with Job. iii. A close connection exists between 
Ps. viii. 5 and Job vii. 17 ff. ; Ps. lxxii. and Job xxix. ; 
Prov. xvi. 15 and Job xxix. 23 ff.; Hos. ii. 8 and 
Job. xix. 8; Isa. xix. 5 and Job xiv. 11. The con- 
nection is more apparent in the Hebrew original, and 
it is not easy to decide in all these cases which is the 
earlier passage. There are also many other quotations 
from, or imitations of, Job in other books of the Old 
Testament. 



148 THE POETICAL BOOKS. 

The patriarch Job is depicted in the book as one 
who lived in the early patriarchal period. But that 
fact is not sufficient to prove the poem to have been as 
early as Moses, as the older commentators maintained. 
The historical references in the poem are uncertain, 
for the author has shown much skill in concealing 
his personal surroundings. The reference in chap. xii. 
14-25 to the deportation of people from one country 
to another tends to prove that the book is later than 
the Assyrian empire, although some distinguished 
critics have assigned it to the Solomonic period of 
Hebrew literature. / The most probable time for its 
composition is between Isaiah and Jeremiah.) The 
theory that suffering Job is an allegory of suffering 
Israel must be set aside as unsatisfactory. For the 
sufferings of Job are represented in the poem not as 
brought upon him by reason of sin ; while the suffer- 
ings which befel Israel are represented throughout the 
Old Testament as the consequences of transgression. 
Although the poet represents Job as living in the 
Hauran, he occasionally reveals his own Israelitish 
standpoint. God is spoken of in the prologue as 
Jehovah, although that name seems to have been pur- 
posely avoided in the dialogue. Job, however, uses the 
name on two occasions, chap. i. 21, xii. 9. The writer 
was well acquainted with life in Eastern Palestine, and 
had an intimate knowledge of the natural history of 
Egypt. He lived at a period when his readers were 
sufficiently acquainted with the Egyptian animals to 
comprehend the glowing descriptions given in the book 
of the crocodile and the hippopotamus. 

2. The subject of the book is the problem of tho 



THE BOOK OF JOB. 149 

sufferings of the righteous. Misfortunes are sometimes 
the result of sin, and proceed from the punitive hand 
of the Almighty. But the ungodly are, however, 
often in great prosperity, while the righteous suffer 
adversity. Afflictions in the latter case are sometimes 
(though man may not know it) simply probative, 
and designed to test and exhibit the character of the 
pious. This, according to the Prologue, was the 
unknown cause of the sorrows that overwhelmed 
Job. 

The book opens with a prologue (chap, i.-ii.), which 
describes Job's righteousness and prosperity, and the 
ruin which befel him by reason of the hostility of 
Satan, " the adversary." Job's trust in God even in 
adversity is strikingly described. But the severest 
trial occurred when in that adversity he was visited 
by consoling friends. Job's complaint (chap, iii.) 
afforded his friends an opportunity of pointing out 
to him that sin was the real cause of his sufferings. 
In three sets of speeches (chap, iv.-xxvi.) the friends 
urged that point, gradually increasing in bitterness 
of language caused by the obstinacy of Job. For 
notwithstanding the repeated attacks of his friends, 
Job stoutly upheld his righteousness, and when hard 
pressed, ventured even to call in question the righteous- 
ness of God Himself. In Job's closing speech, however, 
the patriarch simply asserted the incomprehensibility 
of God's ways. Job's closing soliloquy occupies chap, 
xxvi.-xxxi. A new speaker (Elihu) is then introduced 
in the person of a bystander, in chap, xxxii., preceded 
by a short introduction (xxxii. 1-5). Elihu's speech, 
which advocates the disciplinary and purgative view 



150 THE POETICAL BOOKS. 

of affliction, occupies chap, xxxii. 6 to xxxvii. No reply- 
is given in the book to the speech of Elihu, and Elihu is 
not even alluded to in the closing chapter, in which all 
the other speakers are mentioned by name. The speech 
of Jehovah out of the whirlwind occupies chap, xxxviii.- 
xli. That speech did not explain the enigma of Job's 
sufferings; it simply demonstrated the ignorance of 
man, who is unable to unravel the common secrets 
of nature which surround him on every side. The 
conclusion, suggested but not expressed, is, if mortal 
man be so ignorant of common matters, he cannot 
expect to understand the secrets of the Most High. 
The voice of the Almighty out of the storm-cloud was 
enough for Job. He did not require the moral of that 
speech to be pointed out to him, but forthwith acknow- 
ledged his ignorance and sin (chap. xlii. 1-6). Though 
previously defiant, Job became at once subdued and 
humble. The book closes with an epilogue (chap, 
xlii. 7-17) which narrates how the friends of Job were 
condemned for their want of integrity, and how Job 
himself was restored again to prosperity. 

3. The book suggests many critical questions. The 
prologue and epilogue, though portions often disputed, 
are essential to the work. Without their assistance 
the riddle of the book could not be solved. Although 
comparatively little attention has been called to the 
fact, it is worthy of note that Job is nowhere described 
as made acquainted, either before or after his suffer- 
ings, with the real cause of his trials. To him all 
those sufferings seemed to have a purely earthly origin. 
The genuineness of several portions of the book has 
been disputed. The objections against the genuineness 



THE BOOK OF JOB. 151 

of chap, xxvii. 7-xxviii. 28, adduced by Kennicott, 
Eichhorn, Ewald and others, have, perhaps, finally 
been set at rest by Giesebrecht, Der Wendepunkt des 
B. Hiob.y Kap. xxvii. und xxviii., 1879. The de- 
scriptions of behemoth, or the hippopotamus, and 
of leviathan, or the crocodile (chap. xl. 15 to xli.), 
have been regarded by some critics as doubtful, 
because those portions might be omitted without 
detriment to the poem. More serious are the diffi- 
culties which beset the episode of Elihu (chap, xxxii.- 
xxxvii.), which appears to be an addition by some 
later hand. The style in which the speeches of Elihu 
are composed is inferior to that of the other portions 
of the book. But although those chapters may be 
later additions, they are by no means an unimportant 
part of the book. They contain passages of undoubted 
beauty (chap, xxxiii. 13-30), and, from an ethical 
standpoint, form a most useful and important appendix 
to the great work. 

4. The Book of Job has called forth at all times a host of 
commentators. Of the older, Fred. Spanhemii, Historia lobi 
sive de obscnris hist, comm., 1672, must not be forgotten, as 
well as Drusii, Nova versio et schol., 1636 ; J. H. Michaelis 
in Annot. in Hagiogr. ; Alb. Schultens, Liber lobi cum nova 
vers, and comm., 2 vols, 4to, 1737. Rosenmuller, Scholia, 2nd 
edit. 1824; Compend. 1832. H. Ewald, Kommentar, 1836, 
2 Aufl., 1851 ; and in his Dichter des Alt. Bundes, 2te Ausg., 
1854. An English translation was published by Williams and 
Norgate, 1882 ; Hciligstedt, Comm. gramm. hist, crit., in 4th vol. 
of JIaurer, 1847 ; Schlottmann, 1851 ; Hirzel in Kurzgef. Ex, 
Handb., 1839, 2te Aufl. by Olshausen, 1851 ; neu bearbeitct von 
Dillmann, 1869; A. B. Davidson, Comm. gram, and exeg., vol. 1 
(chap, i.-xiii.), 1862. The second volume was never published. 
Also his Booh of Job with notes, in Cambridge Bible, 1884. 



152 THE POETICAL BOOKS. 

Bernard's Book of Job expounded to his Cambridge pupils, edit, 
by Chance, 1864, is replete with arbitrary interpretations, and 
must be used with special caution ; Ernest Renan, Le livre deJob 
traduit de VHebreu. Etude sur l'age et le caractere du poeme» 
3rd edit., 1865. E. W. Hengstenberg, Das Buck Iliob erldutert, 
1870, 1875. Ad. Merx, Das Gediclit von Hiob, Heb. text, 
kr. bearb. u. libers, nebst Einl., 1871. Hitzig, Comm., 1874. 
Franz Delitzsch, Comm., 1864, 2te Aufl., 1876; English transla- 
tion published by T. and T. Clark. C. Budde, Beitrdge zur Krit. 
des B. Hiob. 1876. Giesebrecht, see above, p. 151. S. Cox, 
Commentary with translation, 1880. G. L. Studer, Das Buch 
Hiob ubers. u. krit. erldutert, 1881. G. Bateson Wright, 
The Book of Job. A new crit. rev. transl. into English, 1883. 
G. G. Bradley, Lectures on Job, 1887. E. Reuss, Hiob, 1888. 
Saadiah, Das Buch Hiob ubersetzt u. erlddrt, von J. Cohn, 
Altona, 1889. W. Volck in Die Poet. Hagiographa, vol. vii. 
of Strack-Zockler's Kommentar, 1889. The Commentary of 
Prof. S. Lee, Lond., 1837, ought not to be forgotten. 

Monographs on passages of Job abound, especially on 
chap. xix. 25-27, by Kosegarten, 1815 ; Stickel, 1832 ; H. Ewald, 
in Zeller's Theol. Jahrb., 1843 ; Kostlin, 1846 ; P. Konig, 1855; 
Hoelemann, in. his Bibelstudien, 1859 ; S. Oettli, Hiob nnd 
Faust, 1888 ; Graf von Baudissin, Transl. Antia. Arab. Libri 
lobi qure supersunt nunc prim, edita, 1870 ; K. Budde, on 
Job xxvii., xxviii., in Zeitschrift filr A. T. Wissenschaft, 1882. 
A general view of the book is given in C. H. H. "Wright's 
Biblical Essays, 1886 ; as also in A. W. Momerie's Defects of 
Modern Cliristianity and other Sermons, 1883, a considerable 
part of which is devoted to an analysis of Job ; T. K. Cheyne's 
Job and Solomon, or the Wisdom of the Old Testament, 1887, 
discusses Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, etc. See Appendix. 

§ 2. The Psalms. 

1. The Psalter is in Hebrew termed D^nfl 159, Book 

of Praises or Hymns. The name is not altogether 

suitable, for the majority of the poems in the book 

are rather prayers, rii?pJ|), than praises. Moreover 



. THE PSALMS. 153 

some of them were specially designed as hymns in- 
tended to be accompanied by the harp, for which 
I'lOtP is the more appropriate expression, from whence 
the Greek if/aX/xoi, from if/dWew, and i^aXrrJ/aiov, denoting 
primarily the instrument, and then the collection of 
psalms. In Luke xx. 42 the expression is used, 
/3i'/3A.os \f/aXfxu)V. 

2. The Psalter was in Hebrew divided into five 
books (duly given in the Revised Version) in order to 
correspond with the five several books of the Pen- 
tateuch (see pp. 73, 74). The first book includes 
Ps. i.-xli., all Psalms traditionally supposed to be 
Davidic or Solomonic. Ps. i. is introductory, and has 
no superscription. Ps. ii. is also without a title, as 
well as Ps. x. The latter was probably the conclusion 
of Ps. ix., with which it is united in the LXX. 
Ps. xxxiii. has no heading in the Hebrew; but in 
the LXX. it is ascribed to David. The Psalms 
contained in the First Book generally employ Jehovah 
as the name of the Divine Being. II. The Second 
Book is composed of Ps. xlii.-lxxii., and is a collection 
of Elohistic Psalms, i.e. Psalms in which Eloldm 
(God) is mainly used as the Divine appellation. Of 
these, Ps. xlii.-xlix. were composed by " the sons of 
Korah." Ps. xliii. has no superscription, and was, 
no doubt, originally a part of the preceding psalm. 
To the Korahite collection a single psalm of Asaph 
is appended (Ps. L), after which follow a number of 
Elohistic Psalms, generally ascribed to David (Ps. li.- 
lxxi.). Pss. lxvi. and lxvii. have not the name David 
in their superscriptions, although the LXX. inserts 
the name of David in the latter (lxvii.). The collec- 



154 THE POETICAL BOOKS. 

tion of Book II. closes with a Solomonic Psalm (Ps. 
lxxii.). Two Psalms which are found in the First 
Book in a Jehovistic form (Ps. xiv. and Ps. xl. 13-17) 
reappear in the Second Book in an Elohistic form 
(Ps. liii. and Ps. lxx.). III. The Third Book contains 
Pss. lxxiii.-lxxxix. inclusive. Of these seventeen Psalms, 
the first eleven are ascribed to Asaph; four to the 
sons of Korah (Pss. lxxxiv., Ixxxv., lxxxvii., lxxxviii.), 
the last (Ps. lxxxviii.) being ascribed especially to 
Heman. Another (Ps. lxxxvi.) is ascribed to David, 
and one to Ethan (Ps. lxxxix.). The collection of 
Psalms contained in the Third Book must, on account 
of Pss. lxxiv. and lxxix., have been made subsequently 
to the Exile. IV. The Fourth Book of the Psalms 
comprises also seventeen Psalms (Pss. xc.-cvi.). Most 
of theso are by anonymous writers. The Hebrew 
superscriptions assign Ps. xc. to Moses, and Ps. ci.-ciii. 
to David. But the LXX. ascribe eleven of the Psalms 
contained in this Book to David, leaving only five 
anonymous Psalms (xcii., c, cii., cv., cvii.). V. The 
Fifth Book comprehends the remaining Psalms from 
Ps. cvii. to the end of the Psalter. Fifteen of these 
Psalms are ascribed in the Hebrew to David, including 
four of the Psalms known as " Songs of Ascents " 
(Pss. cxxii., cxxiv., cxxxi., cxxxiii.). Ps. cxxvii. is 
ascribed to Solomon. In the LXX. and Vulgate the 
four mentioned " Songs of Ascents " are not assigned 
to David. All the other Psalms in the book marked 
as Davidic in the superscriptions are ascribed to 
the same source by the LXX. and Vulgate. One 
of these (Ps. cxxxviii.) is in the LXX. ascribed 
to Haggai and Zechariah. Ps. cxxxvii. is similarly 



THE PSALMS. 155 

ascribed in the LXX. to David and Jeremiah ; and 
Pss. cxlvi., cxlvii. (which latter is divided into two 
Psalms in the LXX.) with Ps. cxlviii. are likewise 
assigned to Haggai and Zechariah. Similarly in the 
Syriac (Peshitto Version) several Psalms belonging 
to the book are said to refer to the prophets of the 
Restoration, or to their contemporaries, Zerubbabel, 
Joshua the high priest, and Nehemiah. The Vulgate 
agrees with the LXX. in making Haggai and Zech- 
ariah the authors of Ps. cxlvi. The Vulgate considers 
Ps. cxi. to refer to the Restoration which took place 
under those prophets. 

The division into five books was made with the 
object of assimilating the Psalter to the Pentateuch 
(see pp. 73, 74). An attempt seems to have been made 
to compare also the number of the verses found 
in the Psalter and Pentateuch. Geiger mentions a 
Baraitha, or authoritative tradition, in which the 
number of the verses in the Pentateuch, the Psalter 
and Chronicles, were made nearly to coincide, the 
numbers being put respectively at 5,888, 5,881, and 
5,889. The verse division of the Massoretes for the 
three books amounts respectively to 5,845, 2,527, and 
1,656. 

It is evident that those who arranged the Psalter 
in its present form wished each of the five books to 
close with a doxology. This explains the reason why 
the Fourth Book was made to close with Ps. cvi., 
and the Fifth Book to open with Ps. cvii., although 
the latter Psalm is closely connected by the nature 
of its contents with the two Psalms which imme- 
diately precede it. A special formal doxology was 



156 THE POETICAL BOOKS. 

not considered to be required at the close of the Fifth 
Book, inasmuch as that book closes as it were with 
11 pillars of smoke " of the incense of thanksgiving. 
The doxology at the close of Book IV. (Ps. cvi. 48) 
seems, from a comparison of the parallel passage in 
1 Chi on. xvi. 3C, to end with a rubrical direction for 
the employment of that Psalm in public worship. 

3. The number of Psalms contained in the Psalter 
has been variously estimated. The printed Hebrew 
text has 150. The LXX. have the same total, 
although they unite certain Psalms (Ps. ix. with x. 
and cxiv. with cxv.), and divide others into two 
(Ps. cxvi. and Ps. cxlvii.), so that the numbering of 
the Psalms does not correspond. An additional Psalm 
is added at the end in the LXX., expressly marked 
as " outside the number." In the Jerusalem Talmud 
the number assigned to the Psalms is 147, "corre- 
sponding to the years of our father Jacob" (Shabb. 
xvi. 1). That number was obtained by combining 
together certain Psalms, and in old MSS. the number 
of the Psalms is often less than 150, Ps. xliii. being 
combined with Ps. xlii., etc. 

4. Allusion has already been made to the super- 
scriptions. In the Hebrew only thirty-four Psalms 
are without such titles. The titles in some cases 
mark the liturgical character of special Psalms, e.g. 
" For the chief musician," or " precentor," etc., or 
their musical character, as Maskil, Shiggaion, etc. 
The titles in other cases occasionally specify the 
instruments of music by which the Psalms were 
intended to be accompanied, and the measure and 
melody to be employed. In other cases they specify 



THE PSALMS. 157 

the occasions on which the Psalms were employed, 
e.g. " songs of degrees," or " ascents," probably de- 
signed for the pilgrims going up to Jerusalem. The 
superscriptions also indicate the contents of the 
Psalms themselves, whether songs of praise or of 
prayer. In many cases several of these objects are 
combined in the titles. Still often er the titles state 
the supposed authors of the Psalms, and occasionaliy 
the occasions on which they were written. Seventy- 
three Psalms are ascribed to David, thirty-seven of 
which are found in the First Book. 

5. Modern critics do not generally coincide with 
the statements put forth in the titles (whether of the 
Hebrew or LXX. Psalter) as to the authorship of 
the Psalms. Some of these critics take an extreme 
view, and assert (as Reuss and Kuenen) that no 
Davidic Psalm is to be found in the Psalter. Ewald 
admitted only the Davidic authorship of eleven, Hitzig 
of fourteen. According to Delitzsch, forty-four out 
of the seventy-three are Davidic. Other critics (as 
Hitzig, Olshausen, Peuss, etc.) maintain that many 
of the Psalms are of the Maccabean era; but such 
extreme views are not generally entertained. Some 
of the Psalms are undoubtedly post-exilian; a few, 
such as Pss. xliv., lxxiv., lxxxiii., may be Maccabean, 
but the latter point is doubtful. The number of 
Messianic Psalms has been much exaggerated by the 
older commentators, and has been unduly lessened 
by the later critics. The most important Messianic 
Psalms are the ii., xvi., xxii., lxxii., and ex. The 
New Testament writers recognize decided Messianic 
elements in Pss. viii., xl., xlv. Ixviii., lxix., lxxxix, xci., 



158 



THE POETICAL BOOKS. 



and cxviii. The Messiah is often identified with His 
people, and what refers to them refers to Him also. 
Moreover, prophecies which primarily refer to the 
Messiah are often applicable to all the people of God. 
The seven Psalms known ecclesiastically as the seven 
Penitential Psalms, are the vi., xxxii., xxxviii.,li., cii., 
cxxx., and cxliii. The theology of the Psalter is the 
same as that of the prophets; and as the Psalms 
were used in the congregation as well as in private 
devotion, they present us with a vivid picture of the 
theology which prevailed among the pious portion of 
the people of Israel. 



6. The Targum on the Psalms must on the whole be regarded 
as the oldest commentary on the book. That Targum, how- 
ever, is in its present shape younger than the Syriac Peshitto 
Version. This question has been discussed by Noldeke, and 
later by Friedr. Baethgen in his Untersuchungen uber die 
Psalmen nach der Peschitto, 1878, and in his articles on Der 
textkr. Wert der alien Ueberss. z. d. Ps. in the Jahrb. f. prot. 
Theol., 1882. Several of the Fathers wrote on the Psalms, 
as Hilary, Chrysostom, and Augustine ; and Jewish com- 
mentaries of great value are those of Eashi, Ibn Ezra, and 
D. Kimchi. Dr. Schiller- Szinessy has edited a portion of the 
latter (Book I.) at the Cambridge Press. Numerous are the 
writers on the Psalms during the Reformation era, such as 
Luther, Calvin, whose commentary, newly edited by Tholuck 
in 1836, has not lost its value ; Aretius Felinus (M. Butzer), 
1526 ; E. Eiidinger, 1580. The notes of Fr. Vatable, of Paris, 
are to be found in B. Stephanus, BibL, 1557, and in the 
Critici Sacri, which contain also many notes of value from 
other commentaries. . In post-reformation times appeared 
the commentaries of Mart. Geier, 1668, 2 vols., 4to, folio 
1709; J. H. Michaclis, Adn. pliil.-exeg. in Hagiog., 1720; 
H. Venema, 6 vols., 1762-1767 ; C. A. Crusius, Hypomne- 



THE PSALMS. 159 

mata, 1764-1778 ; Rosenmiiller, Scholia, 3 vols., 1798, 2nd 
ed., 1821. The modern school may be said to commence 
with deWette's Commentai'y, 1811, 5th edit, by G. Baur, 1856; 
Stier, 1834-1836 ; F. Hitzig, 1835, 1836, new edition 1863-5 ; 
E. W. Hengstenberg, 1842-7, 2te Aufl., 1849-52, translated into 
English, T. and T. Clark ; H. Ewald, 1835, Bidder des alten 
Bundes, I., neue Ausarb., 1866, English translation by John- 
ston, 1881, hrit. Comm., 1882 ; H. Hupfeld, 1855-62, 2te Ausg. 
by Riehm., 3te Ausg. by Nowack, 1888; A. Tholuck, practical, 
2te Aufl., 1873 ; J. Olshausen, 1853 ; E. Boehl, Zrcolf Mess. 
Psalmen, 1862 ; Franz Delitzsch, 1859, 4te Aufl., 1883, 1884, 
translated into English and specially revised by the author 
(3 vols.), Hodder and Stoughton, 1887-1890 ; J. J. S. Perowne, 
The Booh of Psalms, 2 vols., 7th edit., 1890 ; A. C. Jennings 
and W. H. Lowe, The Psalms with critical notes, 2nd edit., 
1884-5 ; T. K. Cheyne, Booh of Psalms, transl.,1881 ; Comm., 
1 888 ; Origin and Religious Ideas of the Psalter (Bampton 
Lectures), 1891 ; John Forbes (Prof, at Aberdeen), The Booh 
of Psalms, and his Studies in the Booh of Psalms, 1888 ; 
Graetz, Krit. Comm,., 1882 ; Ed. Reuss, Poesie lyrique, 1879; 
Hirsch, Die Ps. iibersetz. u. erhl, 1882 ; F. W. Schultz, in 
S track and Zbckler's Comm., 1888. 

The monographs written upon special Psalms, or on subjects 
connected with the book, are too numerous to be mentioned 
here ; but it may be well to note that Giesebrecht has written 
on Book II.-V. in the Zeitschrift fur A. T. W. for 1881 ; Carl 
Ehrt, Abfassungszeit u. Abschluss des Psalters (iiber Macca- 
baerpsalmeri) hist. krit. untersucht, 1869 ; T. K. Abbott on the 
Alphabetical Arrangement of the Ninth and Tenth Psalms, 
in Hermathena, Dublin, 1889. Baethgen's articles on the 
Commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia in the Zeitschrift fur 
A. T. W. for 1885, 1886, and 1887 are of special interest. So 
also the article of E. Smend in Studien und Kntiken for 1888, 
Bishop Alexander (of Derry), Bampton Lectures on the Witness 
of the Psalms to Christ and Christianity, 3rd edit., revised, 1890; 
Bottcher's notes in Aehrenlese z. A. T, ii. 1864, are important; 
and on Ps. lxviii. in his Proben A. T. Schrifterhl'drung, 1833. 
In the Stadia Biblica, vol. ii., Clar. Press, Oxford, 1890, Ad. 



160 THE POETICAL BOOKS. 

Neubauer has written on The Authorship and the Titles of 
the Psalms according to early Jewish Authorities. 

Numerous works have been published on the form of 
Hebrew poetry. Among these may be noted Bishop Lowth's 
Be sacra poesi eh\, often re-edited, as by Michaelis, 1777 ; by 
Kosenmiiller, 1815 ; and even translated into English. Ewald, 
Hupfeld, and other scholars have written on the same subject. 
Among the latest writers are E. Meier, 1853 ; IT. Steiner, 
Ueber heir. Poesie, 1873 ; G. Bickell, Carvi. V.T. metrice, 
1882, etc. 

§ 3. The Book of Proverbs. 

1. The Book of Proverbs bears the superscription 
(Prov. i. 1) of " The Proverbs (^9) of Solomon, son 
of David, king of Israel." The word <^£ signifies 
a representation or similitude, and is not properly 
translated as in the LXX. by 7rapoi/Aiai SaXw/xoivos or 
in the Vulgate, Proverbia Salomonis. Though, how- 
ever, properly " similitudes," the word is also in this 
book applied to sententious sentences. 

I. The book opens with what may be described as 
a preface setting forth the general character of its 
contents (chap. i. 1-7). II. This preface is succeeded 
by a number of introductory discourses in praise of 
wisdom, specially designed for young men (chap. i. 8- 
ix. inclusive), the whole series forming a poem of 
great merit. III. This is succeeded by a collection 
of sentences, bearing the superscription of " The 
proverbs of Solomon," nb^f tyl? (chap. x. 1). This 
portion, which includes chap. x. 1-xxii. 16, has been 
subdivided by Ewald into five parts, beginning respec- 
tively chap. x. 1, xiii. 1, xv. 20, xvii. 25, xix. 20. 
The proverbs in this collection appear to be the oldest 
in form, and consist for the most part of two contrasted 



THE PROVERBS. 161 

sentences. TV. A new section, though without a 
formal superscription, begins at chap. xxii. 17, with 
the words, " Incline thine ear, and hear the words 
of the wise," DP?D ^5^. That short section is a 
kind of appendix to the preceding, and closes at 
chap. xxiv. 22. V. It is followed by another appendix, 
which is preceded by the formula : " These are also 
(sayings) of the wise," or literally, " Even these 
(belong) to the wise," D*p$r£ nWrDa. This supple- 
mentary appendix embraces chap. xxiv. 23-34. Each 
of these two appendices contain a striking parabolic 
poem. That which is found in the former describes 
the evil effects of wine and drunkenness (chap, xxiii. 
29-35) : that which occurs in the latter paints a 
vivid picture of the sluggard and the results of his 
slothf ulness (chap. xxiv. 30-34). VI. The next portion 
of the book, consisting of chap, xxv.-xxix., contains 
another collection of the proverbs of Solomon, begin- 
ning with the formula, r\bbf bfto % D|, "These 
also are proverbs of Solomon which the men of 
Hezekiah copied out" (chap. xxv. 1). "The men of 
Hezekiah" were probably a college of scribes, organized 
by that monarch for the purpose of the preservation 
and editing of the sacred writings of the nation. 
The college probably existed under that name for 
a long time subsequent to Hezekiah's reign. This 
portion of the book is rich in emblematic sentences 
containing three, four or five lines each, and also 
includes a parabolic poem (chap, xxvii. 23-27). These 
collections of the Proverbs of Solomon, and of the 
sayings of the wise, are followed by three remarkable 
appendices which conclude the work. VII. The first 

11 



162 THE POETICAL BOOKS. 

of these (chap, xxx.) contains " the words of Agur 
the son of Jakeh." VIII. The second "the words 
of king Lemuel" (chap. xxxi. 1-9). The word NB>D, 
rendered in the prophets " burden," "oracle," occurs 
in both these superscriptions, in the first with the 
article. Its oop.urrence creates considerable difficulties, 
for it may be regarded also as a proper name. Nothing 
whatever is really known about either Agur or Lemuel, 
but numerous conjectures have been made which can- 
not here be summarised. IX. The last chapter of 
the book (chap. xxx. 10-31) also contains a didactic 
poem of great beauty, in praise of a good wife. Each 
of the twenty-two verses commences in due order with 
a letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and the poem has 
been well termed "a golden alphabet." 

2. There are no decisive reasons to compel us to 
call in question the Solomonic authorship of the 
collection of proverbs ascribed to him. The whole 
book was in ancient times regarded as the work of 
Solomon. The phenomena of the book, however, prove 
it to be of various authorship, although we can see no 
objection to the view that Solomon wrote the proverbs 
ascribed to him. It is certainly a groundless assump- 
tion that a writer or collector of such proverbs as are 
contained in the first collection could not have made 
a second collection of a somewhat different character. 
It is, however, to be noted that the text of the 
LXX. contains proverbs not to be found in the 
Hebrew, and in some places in that version the chap- 
ters are arranged in different order. Many repetitions 
are found . in the book ; whole proverbs are repeated 
word for word, or with slight alterations not affecting 



THE PROVERBS. 163 

the sense, e.g. chap. xiv. 12 reappears at chap. xvi. 25 ; 
chap. xxi. 19 reappears at chap. xxv. 24 ; chap, 
xviii. 8 in chap. xxvi. 22; chap. xxii. 3 in chap, 
xxvii. 12; chap. xx. 16 in chap, xxvii. 13. Other 
proverbs are repeated with alterations and additions, 
e.g. chap. xvi. 2 in xxi. 2 ; chap. xv. 8 in chap. xxi. 27 ; 
chap. xi. 13, in chap. xx. 19, etc. 

3. Melanchthon wrote a commentary on the Proverbs, 
1555, but the Reformation period is not rich in commentaries 
on the book. Important still is Martin Geier's Pr overbid 
enucleata, 1669, 2nd edit., 1725. A. Schultens' commentary, 
1748, is massive, but needs to be used with caution ; latest 
edition by Teller, 1769. Umbreit, Pliilol. krit. u. philos. 
Kovun., 1826. Rosenmuller, Sc7iolia, 1829. Ewald, Die Solo- 
monischen Scliriften, 2te Ausg., 1867. Bertheau, 1847, newly 
worked up by Nowack, 1883 ; Elster, 1858 ; Hitzig, 1858 ; 
Moses Stuart (the American scholar), 1852. Zockler, in 
Lange's Bibelwerk, 1867 ; translated into English, and edited 
with additions by Dr. Aiken, in the American edition of that 
work, T. and T. Clark, 1869. Franz Delitzsch, 1873 ; Rohling, 
1879. Ibn Ezra's (?) Commentary on the book has been 
edited by Prof. Driver, 1880. The Midrash Mishle has been 
translated into German by Aug. Wunsche, in his valuable 
Bibliotheca Babb., 1885. Herm. Deutzsch, Die SpriicJie 
Salomons nach der Auffassang im Talmud u. Midrasch, 1885- 
1886 ; Henri Bois, La poesie gnomique chez les Hebreux et les 
Grecs, Salomon et Theognw, Toulouse, 1886 ; Ant. J. Baum- 
gartner, Etude critique sur le texte du livre des Proverbes, 
Leipzig, 1890 ; H. L. Strack, Conim. in Strack and Zockler's 
Comm., 1888. 

The monograph of H. F. Miihlau, De prov. qua dicuntur 
Aguri et Lemuelis orig. atque indole, 1869, and Graetz's 
Exegetische Studien zu den Salom. Spi'iichen, in his Monat- 
tchrift filr Gesch. u. Wiss. d. Judenthums, 1884, are both 
important. T. K. Cheyne in Job and Solomon (see p. 152) ; 
S. C. Malan, Original Notes on the Book of Proverbs, vol. 1 



164 THE POETICAL BOOKS. 

(chap, i.-x.), 1890 ; A. Rahlf, Greg. Ahilfarag, genannt Bar 
Ebhroyo, Anmerkungen, zu den Salomonischen Schriften, 
1887 ; C. G. Montefiore, in Jewish Quarterly Review, 1890 
(July). 

§ 4. ECCLESIASTES. 

1. The Book of Ecclesiastes, in the Hebrew canon 
constitutes one of the five Megilloth, and was read at 
the Feast of Tabernacles. In Hebrew the book is 
termed Koheleth (ffe'p), which is translated by the 
LXX. 'EKKA^onao-njs, or the Preacher, Latinized in 
the Vulgate as Ecclesiastes, and adopted generally 
as its title. The meaning of the word has been much 
disputed. It is probably a feminine form used to 
intensify the meaning, and several proper names of 
the same formation occur in the later books as names 
of men (Neh. vii. 57 ; Ezra ii. 57). In one passage 
of this book (chap. vii. 27) the word is treated as 
feminine, but the reading of the Hebrew there is 
probably erroneous. In all other passages the word 
is construed as masculine. The writer gives his 
experience in the person of Solomon, but he does not 
pretend to be really Solomon. The very mode in 
which the writer refers to Solomon shows clearly 
that the author did not wish to impose on his readers. 
Solomon is spoken of in chap. i. 12-18 as one who 
had already passed away from the world. The name, 
consequently, was assumed by the writer not as a 
"pious fraud," but as a legitimate literary device, 
which was made use of also in later times by the 
author of the Book of Wisdom. The statements made 
in the epilogue have also been regarded by many as 



ECCLESIASTES. 165 

containing a distinct disavowal of the Solomonic 
authorship. So also the allusions in the book tc 
complaints of oppression and so forth. The book was, 
however, regarded in ancient times as the work of 
Solomon; although there are indications in the Targum, 
Talmud, and elsewhere, which show that the Jewish 
wise men were not unanimous on that point. The 
Solomonic authorship has, however, been defended by 
critics of mark, though late critical opinion is almost 
unanimous against it. The language of the work 
and the circumstances of the times alluded to prove 
it to have been composed in the last century of the 
Persian period (b.c. 440-336). 

The form of a Solomonic autobiography, which 
has been assumed by the writer, extends only 
to the first two chapters. In those chapters the 
writer demonstrates the vanity of all earthly things, 
and shows there is no real progress (chap. i. 1-11). 
He then recounts his personal discovery of the vanity 
of wisdom (chap. i. 12-18), of the vanity of pleasure 
and riches (chap. ii. 1-11), for the end of the wise and 
the fool is alike (chap. ii. 12-17), and riches though 
gathered by toil are little worth (ii. 18-23). He 
finally depicts the conditions necessary for cheerfulness 
(ii. 24-26). In chap. iii. 1-15, he proves that God is 
the avenger of all things, and man is powerless before 
Him. He next shows (iii. 16-22) the wickedness of 
men, compares them to the beasts that perish, and 
describes the misery caused by oppression (iv. 1-3), 
rivalry, and toil (iv. 4-6), the advantages of companion- 
ship (iv. 7-12), the vanity common to political life 
(iv. 13-16), and exhibited in religious services (iv. 17- 



166 THE POETICAL BOOKS. 

v. 6). The vanity of riches under various circum- 
stances is pointed out (v. 7-vi. 6). The vanity of de- 
sire itself (vi. 7-9), is shown, for man in himself is 
powerless (vi. 10-12). Chap. vii. 1-24 contains pro- 
verbs concerning things that ought to be preferred by 
the wise, and speaks of the practical advantage of 
wisdom, even under the uncertain affairs of man. 
The wicked woman is described in chap. vii. 25-29 ; 
the benefit of wisdom in the days of oppression and 
doubt, trust in God is inculcated (chap. viii. 1-15), 
the writer again reverting to the thought of human 
ignorance and powerlessness (chap. viii. 16-ix. 2). 
Death and Hades are darkly spoken of in chap. ix. 
3-12. A little parable proving the utility of wisdom 
is given without comment in chap. ix. 13-18. Next 
follow proverbs on the value of wisdom and the 
results of folly (chap. x. 1-15), and on the misery; of 
a land under a foolish king. Benevolence is shown 
to be wise, and the duty of enjoying the present is 
spoken of in chap. xi. 1-8. The writer finally bursts 
forth into a song which describes " the Days of Life, 
and the Days of Death" in chap. xi. 9-xii. 7. This 
poem has been less fitly supposed to be an allegorical 
poem of "the days of youth and old age." The 
literal interpretation is, however, preferable. The 
epilogue at the end of the book (chap. xii. 8-14) 
is supposed by many critics to have been written by 
a different author. The supposition is by no means 
necessary. A day of judgment for every man is the 
solemn truth with which the Book of Koheleth closes. 
Dark as is the standpoint from which the book is 
written, light seems to break forth at its close. The 



ECCLESIASTES. 167 

book recognizes human ignorance more fully than any- 
other work in the sacred canon. But it recognizes 
also that there is a judgment coming which will 
finally dissipate the darkness. The book may thus 
be regarded as a cry for light, suitably stirred up by 
the Holy Spirit, who ever broods over the chaos of 
man's ignorance, and designed fitly to precede the 
New Testament revelation of the Light of the world 
and the Victor over the grave. 

2. The commentary of Jerome on the book is still worthy of 
notice. Of the more modern commentaries may be mentioned 
those of Mercer, 1573 ; Drusius, 1635 ; M. Geier, 1668; van der 
Palm, Eccl. phil. et crit. illust., 1784 ; Zirkel, Untersuchungen, 
1792 ; Knobel, 1836 ; Herzfeld, 1838 ; Ewald, Bichter des alt. 
Bundes,n., 1867 ; A. Heiligstedt, Comm. gram. hist, crit., 1848, 
in Maurer's Comm. in V. T. ; Vaihinger, 1858 ; Hengstenberg, 
1859, English translation by D. W. Simon, published by T. and 
T. Clark, 1860 ; Franz Delitzsch,1875 ; Kleinert, 1864; Zockler, 
1868, English translation with additions byi Professor Taylor 
Lewis, 1872; Graetz, 1871; Nowack, 1883 ; E. Smend, 1889. 

Important English commentaries on the book are those of 
Theod. Preston, with translation of Mendelssohn's Comm. 1845 ; 
C. D. Ginsburg, 1861 ; S. Cox, Expository Lectures, 1867, 
new edition in Expositor's Bible, 1891 ; T. P. Dale, 1873 ; 
Thos. Tyler, 1874 ; E. H. Plumptre, 1881 ; C. H. H. Wright, 
The Book of Koheleth considered in reference to Modern Crit. 
and Modern Pessimism, with crit. and gram, comm., 1883; 
T. K. Cheyne, in Job and Solomon, 1887 ; G. G. Bradley, 
Lectures on Ecclesiastes, 1887 ; Prof. A. W. Momerie's Ag- 
nosticism, 1884, contains an exposition of Ecclesiastes. See App. 

Important monographs on the book, or portions thereof, 
are: — J. S. Bloch, Ur sprung u. Entstehvngszeit, 1872. Ed. 
Boehl, Be Aramaismis, 1860. N. J. Linnarson, Be illo cod, 
sac. libro qui Koheleth inscrib. Qucest., Upsala, 1860. D. 
Johnston, Treatise on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes, 1880. 
and his Exam, of Br. Plumptre 's Comm. on Eccl., 1885. Dr.C. 



168 THE POETICAL BOOKS. 

Taylor, Dirge of Coheleth, 1874. Winzer, Comm. de Koh 
xi. §-xii. 7, 1818, 1819. A. Kohler, Ueb. d. Grundanschau- 
ungen d. B., 1885. R. Bidder, Koheleths Stellung turn Unster- 
blichheitsglauben, 1875. G. Bickell, Bcr Prediger iiber den 
Wert des Baseins, 1884. E. Kenan, BEcclhiaste tr adult 
de VH. avee line Etude, etc., 1882. Klostermann, Recension 
of Wright's Koheleth in Studien u. Kritihen for 1885. 
H. Gratz in Monatssclirift filr Judentum, 1885. E. Kautzsch, 
in Ersch und Gruber, II., Sect, xxxviii. p. 27 ff. A. Palm, 
Qoheleth u. die nach-aristotelisehe Philosophie, 1885, and Die 
Qoheleth Bitteratur, 1886. .E. Pfleiderer, Bie PhilosopMe des 
Herahlit von Ephesus, 1886 ; of this work pp. 255-288 are on 
Qoheleth. M. Friedlander, Age and Authorship of Ecclesiastes, 
in Jewish Quarterly Review, 1889. Seb. Euringer (Rom. 
Cath.), Bes Masora-text des Koheleth hritisch untersucht, 
Leipzig, 1890. 

§ 5. The Song of Songs. 

1. The Song of Songs (DWf) W, LXX. aafxa 
ao-jxoLTwv) is now generally admitted to be a single 
poem proceeding from a single author, and not a 
collection of several independent poems, as was for- 
merly maintained by some critics. It is dramatic in 
form, but not designed for the stage, though probably 
originally intended to be sung in parts. It is a song 
in which is described the triumph of true and virtuous 
love over impure and sensual passion. It probably 
depicts the love of a shepherd towards a maiden 
betrothed to him, who, tempted by the ladies of the 
royal court, and by Solomon himself, to join the royal 
harem, resisted all such temptations, and was finally 
praised by her brothers for her enduring constancy. 
The chorus is composed of the daughters of Jerusalem. 
Solomon himself does not appear in the poem in a 



THE SONG OF SONGS. 169 

favourable light, but rather as the tempter of the 
maiden; and the language of the poem (chap. vii. 
1-9), with which fault has often been found for its 
coarseness and indelicacy, is not intended to express 
the sentiments of true love, but of sensual passion. 
If the literal meaning be admitted to be that primarily 
intended, it is easy to see that the language is capable 
of being interpreted in an allegorical signification, and 
was probably intended to bear such a secondary mean- 
ing. Ps. xlv. is of itself sufficient to prove how easy is 
the ascent from the literal sense to a higher and allegori- 
cal. It is highly probable, too, that such poems were 
preserved among the Sacred Writings, mainly because 
of this very fact, that they were susceptible of such a 
higher interpretation. The opinion of the older critics, 
that the Song of Songs describes dialogues between 
Solomon and an espoused bride (Solomon and Shula- 
mith), is untenable. Shulamith (HW) is not the 
feminine form of Solomon (nb?^), but is identical 
with nV33-1^, a Shunamite, or woman of Shunem or 
Sunem. The word only occurs in chap. vi. 13 (Heb. 
vii. 1). The LXX. thus rightly explain the word 
(r] HovvafUTis), and their explanation is confirmed by 
the fact that the old town of Shunem is now called 
Sulam (Arab. Jj-). 

The fact that the writer speaks of Tirzah (vi. 4), the 
royal residence of the kings of Israel before Samaria 
became the capital, is considered in favour of the early 
composition of the poem. But it must be observed 
that Tirzah is only referred to as a beautifully situated 
city, and not as a capital; and in preference to 
Jerusalem because the loved one was from Shunem, 



170 THE POETICAL BOOKS. 

which is situated in that direction. The poem cannot 
have been much later than the Solomonic era. It 
must be borne in mind that there are scholars of 
eminence who maintain still, in spite of the general 
view given above, that the poem does describe a 
marriage with Solomon of a bride from the northern 
part of Israel, so that the question cannot be con- 
sidered yet as finally closed. The whole poem is 
replete with the fragrance of country life. The poet 
knew Jerusalem as the capital of the kingdom, but 
his whole soul was filled with love of the country. 
Whether the song be regarded as a song of pure love, 
or as a marriage song composed in an era when poly- 
gamy was not distinctly condemned, the poem is in 
either case of importance from a didactic point of view. 
The impure influences of city life were even then lead- 
ing astray many into debasing immorality. Immoral- 
ity even in the Solomonic period was nourished by 
the idolatry which was frequently winked at, if not 
distinctly patronised, by the court party, and too 
often popular in both Israel and Judah. The Song of 
Songs does not, however, describe marriage, which is 
only viewed as something in the future, and it cannot 
be regarded as a poem in praise of monogamy. The 
author seems to have belonged to a northern tribe. 
The various scenes of the poem are marked off from 
one another by the recurrence of particular phrases 
at the beginning and end of each scene. But in 
many details, however, there is room for wide difference 
of opinion. The higher sense of the poem has been 
recognized from the earliest times, but it has suffered 
much from the extravagances of the mystic com- 



THE SONG OF SONGS. 171 

mentators. The Song of Songs forms one of the five 
Megilloth, and is read annually at the Feast of the 
Passover. 

2. The Song of Songs is nowhere cited in the New Testament, 
nor is it quoted by Philo. The allegorical interpretation cannot 
with certainty be traced back earlier than Origen, although 
once introduced it has stoutly maintained the field. The 
Jewish interpreters may have borrowed their ideas on that 
subject from the Christians. The Targum on the book is post- 
Talmudical, and the Midrash even later. The latter has been 
translated into German by Dr. A. Wunsche, in his Bibl. 
Rabbinica. Portions of the work are no doubt susceptible of 
a spiritual interpretation. The commentary of Bernhard of 
Clairvaux, edited in German by Fernbacher, with preface by 
Delitzsch (Bie Reden des heil. Bernhard iiber das Hohelied~), 
is a good specimen of this interpretation, as also is Dr. R. F. 
Littledale's commentary on the book, 1869. Rosenmiiller, in 
his Scholia, 1830 ; Koster, 1839; Hengstenberg, 1853 ; H. A. 
Hahn, 1852 ; Hoelemann, Die Krone des H. L., 1856, are 
among the most prominent of the German commentators who, 
in one form or other, have upheld the allegorical interpretation. 
More critical views have been advanced by J. G. Herder, 
Lieder der Liebe, 1778 ; F. W. 0. Umbreit, Lied der Liebe, 
2nd edit., 1828 ; H. Ewald, Das H. L. Sal., 1826 ; and in his 
Bichter des A. B., ii., 1867 ; F. Bottcher, Bie dltesten Buhne- 
dichtungen, 1850 ; C. D. Ginsburg, Song of Songs, with hist, 
and crit. comm., 1857; Franz Delitzsch, 2te Ausg., 1875; F. 
Hitzig, 1855 ; O. Zockler, in Lange's Bibelwerk, 1868, trans- 
lated into English, with additions, by American scholars ; H. 
Graetz, 1871; B. Sch'afer, 1876 ; S. J. Kampf (Jewish), 1877, 
2nd edit., 1879 ; L. Noack, Tharraqah and Sunamith, 1869 ; 
Dr. Caj. Kossowicz, Canticum Cant, ex Hebrceo convertit et 
explicavit, Petropoli, 1879 ; J. G. Stickel, Bas H. L. in seiner 
Einheit u. dram. Gliederung, 1888 ; C. F. Godet, in his 
Etudes Bibliques, 1873 ; Theod. Gessner, Bas Hohelied erkl. 
und iibersetzt, 1888 ; F. S. Tiefenthal, Bas Hohelied ausgelegt 
fur Theologiestudirenden, Kempten, 1889. S. Oettli, in Strack 



172 THE POETICAL BOOKS. 

and Zockler, 1889. Poetical, though somewhat repulsive, is 
The Song of Songs : a Hebrew Pastoral Drama, not by king 
Solomon, with notes and illustrations by Satyam Jayati [a 
nom de plume. "Truth conquers"], Lond., 1867. Ginsburg's 
view has been prettily popularised in English in The Song 
of Solomon rendered into English Verse, by James Pratt, 
D.D., 1881. 



CHAPTER XV. 
THE PROPHETS. 

§ 1. On the Prophets in General. 

1. f~\N Prophecy and the Prophets in general consult H. 
V-x Witsius, Pe prophetis et prophetia, in his Mis cell. 
Sacra, 1692. J. Clericus, Vet. Test, prophetce, 1731. Chr. A. 
Crusius, Hypomnemata ad tlieol. proph. pertinentia, 1764, 
1778. E. W. Hengstenberg, Christologie des A. T, 2nd edit., 
1854-1857, English translation published in 4 vols, by T. and 
T. Clark ; English abridged edit, by T. K. Arnold. A. Knobel, 
Der Prophetismus d. Hebrder, 2 parts, 1837. J. J. Stahelin. 
Pie 3Iessian. Weissagungen des A. T, 1847. F. M. Koster, 
Pie Proph. des A. u. N. T. nach ihrem Wesen u. Wirhen, 1838. 
Redslob, Der Begriff der Nabi, 1839. J. C. K. v. Hofmann, 
Weissagung u. Erfullung, 2 parts, 1841, 1844. Davison, On 
Prophecy, 1839. Franz Delitzsch, Pie oibl. propli. Theologie, 
Hire Fortbildung durch Crusius, u. ihre neueste Entwichelung 
seit Hengstenlerg, 1845 ; id. Messianic Prophecies, translated 
by S. I. Curtiss, 1880 ; new edit, now in the press, T. and 
T. Clark. A. Tholuck, Die Propheten u. ihre Weissagungen. 
2te Aufl. 1860. L. Eeinke (Roman Catholic), Die Mess. 
Weissagungen bei den gross, u. hi. Proph. des A T., 5 vols., 
1859-62. G. F. Oehler, TJeb. d. Verhdlt. d. A. T. Proph. z. 
heidn. Mantik/lBGl: id. Tlieol. des A. T, 1873, 2te Aufl., 
1882, English translation published by T. and T. Clark. G. 
Bauer, Gesch. d. A. T. Weissagung, 1861. H. Ewald, Die 
Propheten d. A. P., 3 vols, 2te Aufl., 1867, 1868, English 
translation published in Williams and Norgate's Theological 
Translation Fund. Kiiper, Das Proph. d. A. P., 18 T 0. B. 



174 THE PROPHETS. 

Duhm, Bie Theologie der Proph., 1875. E. Payne Smith, 
Bampton Lectures on Prophecy a Preparation for Christ, 
1869. Kuenen, Be Profeten en de Profetie onder Israel, 1875, 
English translation, The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, 
1877. Ed. Eeuss, Les Prophetes, 2 vols., 1876, in his La 
Bible, Traduction nouvelle avec introd. et comm. S. Leathes, 
Old Testament Prophecy, its Witness, 1880. H. Schultz, A. 
T. Theologie, 2te Aufl., 1878. F. Hitzig, Bill. Theologie des 
A. T. u. Messianische Weissagungen, herausgeg. von Kneucker, 
1880. C. J. Bredenkamp, Gesetz u. Propheten, 1881. F. E. 
Konig, Ber Offenbarungsbegriff d. A. T., 2 vols., 1882. C. 
v. Orelli, Bie A. T. Weissagung v. d. Vollendung des Gottes- 
reiches, 1882, English translation published by T. and T. 
Clark. E. Bohl, Christologte d. A. T, 1882. E. Eiehm, Bie 
Mess. Weissagung., 2te Aufl., 1885, English transl. 1876, new 
transl. by L. A. Muirhead, 1891 ; T. and T. Clark. W. Eobert- 
son Smith, The Prophets of Israel and their Place in History, 
1882. Brownlow Maitland, The Argument from Prophecy, 
1877. Important are C. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, 1886 ; 
Delitzsch, Messianic Proph. in hist, succession, 1891. 

2. Among general commentaries maybe mentioned : Bosen- 
muller's Scholia, which are always useful ; Jesaia, 3rd edit., 
1829-1834 ; Jeremiah and Lamentations, 1826, 1827 ; Ezekiel, 
2nd edit., 1820, 1826; Daniel, 1832; Proph. Minores, 2nd 
edit., 1827, 1828. The Translation of the Prophets from Isaiah 
to Malachi, with Notes by Lowth, Blayney, Newcome,Wintle, 
and Horsley, 5 vols., 1836, is antiquated, but occasionally 
useful for English scholars. Eowland Williams, Hebrew 
Prophets Translated; vol. i. Prophets during Assyrian 
Empire, 1866 ; vol. ii. Babylon and Persia, 1871 (left 
unfinished by the author). Henderson, Comm. on Isaiah, 
1857 ; EzeMel, 1855 ; The Minor Prophets, 1858. 

The writers in Lange's Bibelwerk, the Speaker's Commentary, 
the Pulpit Commentary, and in Keil and Delitzsch Comm., and 
in the Kurzgef. Exeg. Handb. will be found mentioned under 
the several books. 



ISAIAH. 175 

A.— THE FOUR GREATER PROPHETS. 
§ 2. ISAIAH. 

1. Isaiah — •1^^!> The Salvation of Jahveh, Gr. 
'Hcrata?, Latin Isaias and Esaias — was the greatest 
of the Hebrew prophets. His father's name was 
Amoz (pOK), which name must not be confounded 
with that of the prophet Amos ( D ^), as was done 
by many of the Greek and Latin writers. Of Amoz 
nothing is really known, although a Jewish tradition 
of very little authority makes Amoz a brother of king 
Amaziah. According to the superscription of Isa. i. 
1, compared with chap. vi. 1, Isaiah prophesied during 
the reigns of four kings ; and if twenty years of age 
when he began his prophetic ministry in the reign 
of Uzziah, must have been considerably above eighty 
when he died. He died a martyr's death in the 
beginning of Manasseh's reign, according to a Jewish 
tradition, probably referred to in Heb. xi. 37. Isaiah 
was married, and his wife is termed a " prophetess" 
(chap. viii. 3). He had at least two sons, Shear-jashub 
(chap. vii. 3) and Maher-shalal-hash-baz (chap. viii. 3). 

2. The Book of Isaiah consists of two main portions, 
the former of which embraces chap, i.-xxxix. ; the 
second, chap, xl.-lxvi. The first half mainly consists 
of prophecies arising out of circumstances which took 
place in the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah. The 
second portion is occupied chiefly with the Baby- 
lonian captivity and the restoration from exile. 

I. The first part is subdivided into several sections. 
(a) Prefatory. The sixth chapter relates the call of 
the prophet. Chap. i.-v. inclusive contain prophecies 



176 THE PROPHETS. 

later in point of time, but which were placed in their 
present position as being peculiarly suitable as a 
general preface, (b) Chap, vii.-xii. have been well 
termed "the book of Immanuel," and contain pro- 
phecies designed to comfort the pious under the 
Assyrian troubles. The land, though overwhelmed 
by the foe, belonged to " Immanuel " (chap. viii. 8), 
and therefore would be ultimately delivered, (c) Chap, 
xiii.-xxiii. are composed of prophecies directed against 
various nations. Of these, chap, xiii.-xiv. 23 contains 
prophecies against Babylon; chap. xiv. 24-27 against 
Assyria; chap. xiv. 28-32 against Philistia; chap, 
xv.-xvi. against Moab; chap. xvii. against Syria and 
its capital Damascus ; chap, xviii. refers to Ethiopia ; 
chap, xix., xx. speak of Egypt; chap. xxi. contains 
short predictions respecting Babylon, Edom, and 
Arabia ; chap. xxii. utters a prophecy of woe against 
Jerusalem, which closes with a bitter denunciation 
of Shebna, who was treasurer during part of 
Hezekiah's reign. In that prophecy is contained a 
prediction of the exaltation to office of Eliakim, 
who, notwithstanding his personal integrity, was 
warned beforehand that his own downfall should 
in turn be caused by a fatal tendency to nepotism. 
These closing verses are considered by some critics 
to have been inserted in this place out of order. 
The suggestion is open to serious doubt. Chap, 
xxiii., which closes this section of the book, con- 
tains a remarkable prediction against Tyre, (d) 
Chap, xxiv.-xxvii. are of a distinctly apocalyptic 
character, and give a vivid description of the final 
overthrow of the world-power. Babylon, Assyria, 



ISAIAH. 177 

and Egypt are the nations which are here specially 
present to the prophet's mind, (e) "The Book of 
Woes " is a suitable description of chap, xxviii.-xxxiii. 
Those prophecies were directed against Samaria and 
Judah, and describe the Assyrian invasion under 
Sennacherib, and the great deliverance then vouch- 
safed to Israel, (f) Chap, xxxiv. and xxxv. are also 
apocalyptic in tone. In those chapters Edom figures 
as the representative of the enemies of Zion. (g) 
Chap, xxx vi. -xxxix. form an historical appendix to 
the whole work, and are almost identical with 2 Kings 
xviii. 13, 17-37, xix., xx., with the exception of the 
psalm of Hezekiah, which is not found in the Book 
of Kings. 

There is much difference of opinion among critics 
on the question of the authorship by Isaiah of the 
prophecies relative to Babylon in chap, xiii.-xiv., xxi., 
and of the two series of apocalyptic chapters (viz. 
chap, xxiv.-xxvii., and xxxiv. -xxxv.). The difficulties 
in the case of chap. xxi. are generally supposed to 
have been obviated by the discovery of a siege of 
Babylon by the Assyrians, which occurred during 
Isaiah's own lifetime. On the assumption that this 
is correct, and bearing in mind that a Babylonian 
invasion of Judah is spoken of in a passage (chap, 
xxxix.) generally acknowledged as historical, if not 
Isaianic, the objections to the genuineness of the 
other prophecies seem to be deprived of much of their 
force. It is impossible fairly to summarise the points 
adduced on both sides in this difficult controversy. 
It must be admitted that the general verdict of 
modern scholarship is in favour (not without important 

12 



178 THE PROPHETS. 

exceptions) of the view that a portion even of the 
first part of the book is the work of other prophets 
belonging to what may be called Isaiah's school. 

II. The second portion of the book consists of chap, 
xl.-lxvi. These chapters are unquestionably written 
from the standpoint of the Babylonian captivity, and 
open with a glorious assurance of the coming redemp- 
tion. The fall and captivity of Israel gave great 
occasion to the idolaters to maintain that their gods 
were superior in might to " the Holy One of Israel." 
Hence the majesty and power of Jehovah, and the 
nothingness of all the other so-called gods of the 
nations are constantly dwelt upon in the closing 
chapters. The literary style of this part of the book is 
often in marked contrast to the first portion, although 
there are remarkable coincidences between the two. 
The difference in style and in standpoint have led the 
majority of modern critics to deny that the second 
part can have been written by Isaiah of Jerusalem? 
and to maintain it to be a product of the Exilic period, 
though probably prior to the Restoration. Its author 
has been termed by Ewald " the great Unknown, " 
and is generally designated the Deutero-Isaiah, or 
the Second Isaiah. If, however, Isaiah predicted the 
Babylonian captivity (chap, xxxix.) on the occasion 
of the embassy sent to Hezekiah by Merodach Baladan, 
it may well bo argued that that prophet must have 
also predicted the Restoration. From the theocratic 
standpoint it can scarcely be conceived that a prophet 
should speak of the people of Jehovah being carried 
away into captivity without predicting a return from 
that captivity, on the principles enunciated in Deut. 



ISAIAH. 179 

xxx. 1 -5. St. Paul, in a much darker period, predicted 
a day of light and deliverance (Rom. xi.). 

If, however, Isaiah was the author of the second 
portion of the book, that portion must have been 
written long after his other prophecies, and towards 
the close of the prophet's career. He must needs 
have often mused on the days of exile approaching, 
as the shadows of apostasy gathered over the land in 
the opening of Manasseh's reign. When an old man, 
he might well have been led to transport himself in 
spirit to the close of that period of disgrace and 
sorrow. No one who actually beheld the Return of 
the Jews could have written in such glowing terms. 
The theory is not, we admit, free from difficulties 
Cyrus is twice mentioned by name (chap. xliv. 28, 
xlv. 1) as the coming deliverer. The latter difficulty is 
not obviated by an appeal to the history recorded in 
1 Kings xiii. 2. It is more probable that the proper 
names in both cases ought to be regarded as later 
additions. And it is conceivable that even other 
additions were made in the process of time to the 
prophecies of this part of the book. 

The second portion of the book falls into three 
parts, (a) Ch. xl.-xlviii. Words of comfort to the 
exiles are combined with the assurance of coming 
restoration, mainly derived from the consideration of 
the essential difference between Jehovah and those 
who were not gods. (6) The great prophecy of 
"the Servant of Jehovah" (chap, xlix.-lvii.). The 
title, " Servant of Jehovah," is employed by Isaiah 
in a threefold sense. It is sometimes used of all 
Israel, "Israel according to the flesh" (chap. xlii. 



ISO THE PROPHETS. 

19); more often of the godly in Israel. 'Israel 
according to the spirit" (chap. xliv. 1. '2. 21 . Bat 
in that special portion the title is used solely with 
reference to the Messiah, to whom the name had been 
also applied in chap. xlii. 1, xliii. 10. (c) Chap, lviii.- 
lxvi describe the past sin and present salvation of 
Israel, and set forth the conditions under which 
the restoration of the people is predicted. They 
describe the future glory of the nation, and the 
overthrow of all the enemies of Jehovah. The first 
two sections of the second part of the book end 
significantly with the refrain, "no peace to the 
wicked," while the final destruction of the ungodly 
is vividly described in the closing verse of the third 

3. The commentaries on Isaiah are very numerous. The 
more important are : Among the Fathers, those of Jerome and 
Cyril of Alexandria may be mentioned. Among the Jewish 
commentaries of "which T^tm translations exist, may be 
mentioned the Comm. in Proph. post, of Is. Abarbanel 
Breithanpf s edition of Bashi (EL Saiom. Yarchi). Comm. in 
Proph. maj. et min., 1713 : Daw Kimchi, Comm. in Ji».,Flor., 
1774; Dm Ezra, Commentary on Isaiah; translated into 
English by M. Friedlander ; rote. L, iL, 1873 ; toL iii 
Important are : StrigeL Condones, 1365, and Calvin, Comm., 
3rd edit.. Genev., 1570; but more especially Vitringas great 
Comm. in two folio volumes (Leov.). 1714, 1720 : reprinted at 
Herborn, 1715, 1722. Bp. Lowth's Comm n useful in its day, 
L-.ni :::t~ :er:i^:e5. is i-Tir-j^e::. ~.-i ::.; rl::::^ :.:: 1 piiV- 
logical notes must be used with caution. The modern school 
of criticism on the book began with Gesenius, whose great 
work on the prophet was published in 3 vols, in 182 
C. L. Hendewerk, Comm n in 2 vols., appeared in 1838, and 
» further work, Die demterojes. Weissagungen, in IS ±3. F. W 



ISAIAH. 181 

C. Umbreit, in Tract. Comm., 2nd edit., 1846. Drechsler, Der 
Proph. Jes. ubersetzt u. erhldrt, began in 1845, 1849, and was 
finally completed by Delitzsch and Hahn in 1854, 1857. E. 
Henderson, Isaiah,with new transl. and crit.and gramm. Comm., 
2nd edit., 1857. P. Schegg (Roman Catholic) wrote a useful 
commentary in 2 vols, in 1850. S. D. Luzzatto published an 
important commentary from the Jewish standpoint, 11 prof eta 
Isaia, Padua, 1855-1866. A. Knobel, in Kurzgef. Exeg. Hando., 
1861 ; revised by Diestel, 1872, and by Dillmann, Der Prophet 
Jesaia erhldrt, 1890. The American scholar J. A. Alexander's 
Commentary appeared in 1846, and edit, by J. Eadie in 
a revised form in 1865 ; 2 vols. Nagelsbach, in Lange's 
Bibelrverk, 1877. J. Knabenbauer (Priest, S. J.), Erhldrung, 
Freib. in B., 1881. T. K. Cheyne wrote on Isaiah chrono- 
logically arranged in 1870, and an important commentary 
entitled Tlie Prophecies of Isaiah, 2 vols., 1880, 1881, 5th 
edit., 1889. Of Delitzsch's great commentary, the 4th revised 
edition appeared shortly before his lamented death in 1889. An 
English translation of that edit, 2 vols., has been published 
in 1890 by T. and T. Clark, with introduction by Driver ; and 
an English transl. of 3rd ed. by Rev. J. Denny, B.D., has 
been published by Hodder and Stoughton, Lond. 1890. C. J. 
Bredenkamp, Der Prophet Jesaia, erldutert, 1887. C. v. Orelli, 
Die Proph. Jesaia und Jer., in Strack-Zockler's Comm., 1887 ; 
v. Orelli's Comm. on Isaiah has been translated into English, 
T. and T. Clark, 1889. Canon Rawlinson has written on 
Isaiah in the Pulpit Comm., 2 vols. 

Monographs have been written on many portions of Isaiah, 
especially on Isa. lii. 13-liii. The most important of these 
is The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish 
Interpreters, 2 vols. ; vol. i., Texts by A. Neubauer ; vol. ii. 
Translations by S. R. Driver and A. Neubauer, with Intro- 
duction by E. B. Pusey, 1876, 1877. W. Urwick, The Servant 
of Jehovah, a commentary, grammatical and critical, on those 
chapters, 1877 (see next page). R. Payne Smith, Authenticity 
and Messianic Interpretation of Prophecies of Isaiah vin- 
dicated, 1862. C. H. H. Wright, The Pre-Christian Jewish 



182 THE PROPHETS. 

Interpretation of Isaiah Hi., liii., in the Expositor, May and 
June, 1888. Sir E. Strachey, Jewish History and Politics in 
Times of Sargon, 1853, 2nd ed. 1874. On the authorship the 
Introdtictions are most important ; and C. P. Caspari, Beit) age 
on (chap, i.-vi.), 1848. The same author has written Ueber den 
Syrisch-ephraimitischen Krieg unter Jotham und Ahas. Ein 
Beitrag zur Gesch. Isr. in der Assyr. Zeit u. zu den Fragen iiber 
die Glaubwiirdigkeit der Chronik und den Plan des Jesaia, 
Christiania, 1849. Aug. Wiinsche, Die Leiden des Messias, 
1870. Lbhr, Zur Frage iiber die Echtheit vonJesaias, xl.-lxvi., 
3 parts, 1878-1880. C. H. Cornill's article on Die Composition 
des Buches Jesaja in Stade's Zeitschrift fur A. T. W., 1884, 
and R. Smend's Anmerkungen zu Jes. xxiv.-xxvii., are both of 
importance. Graetz has written on the same chapters in his 
Monatschrift for 1886. Klostermann on Isaiah in Herzog- 
Plitt Real-Encyel., and F. Fehr, Profeten Jesaja I and II, 
Upsala, 1877, 1878. H. Guthe, Das Zukunftsbild des Jesaia. 
1885 ; J. M. Rod well's The Proph. of Isaiah translated, 2nd 
edit., 1886 ; S. R. Driver, Isaiah, His Life and Times, n. d. 
(1888) ; A. H. Sayce, Life and Times of Isaiah, 1889, Religious 
Tract Society ; Dr. Forbes, The Servant of the Lord, T. and 
T. Clark, 1890, is an important work. G. F. Dalman, Jesaia 
53 m. besond. Beruehsichtig. d. synag. Litteratur, 1890. The 
Swedish scholar, Myrberg, has published also a commentary 
on the book, 1888. Of importance is the English commentary 
by G. A. Smith, The Book of Isaiah, 2 vols., in the Expositor's 
Bible, 1889. See new books in Appendix. 

§ 3. Jeremiah. 

1. Jeremiah (•invpT. and WT., Gr. Icpe/xia?) was 
a priest, the son of Hilkiah, who may have been the 
same as he who " found the book of the law in the 
house of the Lord " (2 Kings xxii. 8). His paternal 
abode was Anathoth near Jerusalem, in the territory 
of Benjamin* He received the prophetic call when 
young (chap. i. 1-7, xxv. 3), in the thirteenth year of 



JEREMIAH, 183 

Josiah (b.c. 629 or 626). He prophesied in Jeru- 
salem and the other cities of Judah (chap. xi. 6), and 
also in Anathoth (chap. xi. 21 ff.). After the capture 
of Jerusalem by the Chaldseans, the prophet resided 
for a short time in Mizpah with Gedaliah, the governor 
of the land (chap. xl. 6) ; but was subsequently carried 
off by the insurgent Jews into Egypt (chap, xliii. 6ff.), 
where he died, stoned to death, according to a late 
tradition, by the Jews at Tahpanhes. 

2. His book consists of two parts. I. Chap, i.- 
xlv., which comprise prophecies concerning Judah 
and the kingdom of God in general, interspersed with 
historical narratives. II. Chap, xlvi.-li. is a separate 
book of prophecies concerning the nations. The last 
chapter (chap, lii.) is an addition by a later hand, 
posterior to B.C. 562. Comp. chap. li. 64 and lii. 31. 
Some of the prophecies were written down under 
Jeremiah's superintendence in the reign of Jehoiakim. 
The roll, however, which contained them was burnt 
by the king (chap, xxxvi.); and in the new edition 
of those prophecies large additions were made to the 
work (chap, xxxvi. 32). Baruch the son of Neriah 
was the constant friend and amanuensis of the pro- 
phet. Many of the prophecies contained in the Book 
of Jeremiah prove on examination not to be arranged 
in chronological order. The genuineness of several of 
the prophecies (e.g. chap. x. 1-16, xxv. 11-14, with 
portions of chap, xxvii., xxx.-xxxiii., etc.) has been 
often called in question, mainly on account of their 
resemblance to passages in the second part of Isaiah. 
Many portions of the work have evidently been 
re-edited with additional matter, and it is uncertain 



184 THE PROPHETS. 

at what period the prophet completed his own work. 
The authorship of chap. L, li. (with the exception of 
li. 59-64) is much disputed ; but the reasons assigned 
are not convincing to those who believe in the reality 
of Divine predictions. 

The text of Jeremiah in the LXX. differs consider- 
ably from that of the Hebrew. The prophecies against 
the nations contained in chap, xlvi.-li. are inserted in 
the LXX. immediately after chap. xxv. 13. In many 
other places the LXX. present a shorter text. The 
superiority of the Hebrew text is, however, generally 
admitted. The alterations in the LXX. seem to have 
been the result of design, and were not caused by 
the errors of copyists. The Hebrew text of the book, 
however, does not appear to have been well preserved. 

Jeremiah was much affected by the sad and open 
breaches of the covenant of which Israel had been 
guilty, and frequently bewails the judgments which 
he saw would inevitably follow. He foresaw, how- 
ever, the dawn of better days, which would be brought 
about by Israel's repentance and regeneration, and 
by the renewal of the covenant between Israel and 
Jehovah. This formed one of the great subjects of 
his predictions. The personality of the Messiah is 
not dwelt upon by Jeremiah as fully as by other 
prophets. But it is spoken of in chap, xxiii. 5-8, 
xxx. 4-11, xxxiii. 14-26. Jeremiah was frequently ac- 
cused by the Jews of his day of lack of patriotism. 
But the accusation was false (see chap. ix.). Had 
the prophet's advice been followed by Zedekiah even 
during the siege of Jerusalem, or by the Jews after 
the murder of Gedaliah, the Babylonian captivity 



JEREMIAH, 185 

would not have been attended with such fatal conse- 
quences to the nation. 

3. The more important commentaries among the Patristic 
writers are those of Jerome and Theodoret. Of Reformation 
and post- Reformation scholars, the commentaries of Calvin 
(Ecolampadius, Piscator may be noted. Important are Ghis. 
lerus, Comm. in Jer. cum catena Patrurn Grcecorum et comm. 
in Lam. et Baruch, 1623 ; Seb. Schmidt, Comm. in lib. proph 
Jer., 2 vols., 4to, 1685, and Herm. Venema, Comm. in lib. proph, 
Jer., 2 vols., 1725. JB. Blayney's Jeremiah and Lamentations 
1784, is now of little value. More useful is J. D. Michaelis 
Obs. phil. et crit. in Jer. vat. ct Threnos, ed. Schleusner, 1793 
The writings of Hensler, 1805 ; Gaab, 1824 ; Rosenmtiller 
Maurer, 1833, and others are still useful. Umbreit, 1842 
Ewald; Hitzig; D. Neumann, Jeremias von Anathoth: die 
Weissagung. u. Klagel. ausgelegt, 1856, 1858, suggestive but 
must be used with caution. K. H. Graf, Der Proph. Jer. erkl., 
1862, 1863; E. Meier, Pie proph. Bucher d. A. T, 1863; 
Hitzig, Jeremiah, 2te Aufl., 1866 ; Keil, Jeremiah and Lamen- 
tations ; translated into English, T. and T. Clark ; Nagelsbach 
on Jeremiah and Lamentations in Lange's Bibelwerh, 1868, 
English translation with addit. notes ; Anton Scholz (Roman 
Catholic), Per Mass. Text u. d. LXX., 1875 ; Commentar, 
1880 ; Guthe, Pe foederis notione Jer., 1877 ; F. Kostlin, Jesaja 
u. Jer. ihr Leben u. Werken, 1879 ; Graetz, Exeg. Studien in 
his Monatschrift, 1883 ; R. Payne Smith in Speaker's Com- 
mentary ; T. K. Cheyne, Comment, on Jer. and Lam. in 
Pulpit Commentary, 1883 ; also in Jeremiah, His Life and 
Times, 1888. G. C. Workman's suggestive work. The Text 
of Jeremiah, 1889, must be used with caution (see Professor 
Driver's critique in Expositor, 1889). A. W. Streane, Com- 
mentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations in the Cambridge 
Bible, 1887, is a useful work for English readers. L. A. 
Schneedorfer (Roman Catholic), Pas Weissagung sbuch des 
Prof. Jer. erkl., 1881, is important. C. J. Ball, The Prophecies 
of Jeremiah in Expositor's Bible, 1889. K. von Orelli, Jes. 
and Jer. in Strack-ZocMer's Comm., 1887. 



186 THE PROPHETS. 



§ 4. The Lamentations. 

1. The Book of Lamentations is in Hebrew MSS. 
termed n^8 {Ah! how?), from its first word, but 
generally in printed editions is styled from its con- 
tents fl^i?, Lamentations ; Gr. ®pr)voi. In the Hebrew 
canon the book forms one of the five Megilloth 
(or Rolls), and is placed among the Hagiographa. 
It is read by the Jews on the anniversary of the 
destruction of the first temple (9th Ab). The 
book is ascribed to Jeremiah in the LXX., Targ., 
and Talmud. It contains five lamentations over 
the fall of Jerusalem. The first four poems are 
alphabetic. In chap. i. and chap. ii. every verse 
commences alike with a new letter of the Hebrew 
alphabet. In chap. iii. there are sixty-six verses, and 
every three verses begin with the same letter. In 
chap. i. the usual order of the alphabet is followed, 
in which V precedes S. But in chap, ii., iii., and iv., 
the reverse order is followed. In chap. iv. there are 
twenty-two verses, each of four lines ; chap. v. is not 
alphabetic, although it has only twenty-two verses. 
The authorship of Jeremiah has been defended by 
many eminent critics, both ancient and modern. 
Compare the statement in 2 Chron. xxxv. 25. It 
must be borne in mind, however, that no remains exist 
of the special lamentations spoken of in that passage, 
although Josephus {Antiq., x. 5, 1) seems to think that 
this book was composed on that occasion. 

The LXX. prefixes the following preface to the 
book, "And it came to pass after Israel was taken 



EZEKIEL. 187 

captive and Jerusalem was destroyed, Jeremiah sat 
down weeping, and lamented with this lamentation 
over Jerusalem, and said/' etc. 

2. A considerable number of those scholars who have written 
on the prophecies of Jeremiah have also written on the 
Lamentations. Among the older commentaries, J. Ternovius, 
Comm. in Thrcnos, 1642; J. H. Pareau, Threw,. Jer. phil. and 
crit. illustr., 1790, are of importance. Among the modern 
writers on the book may be mentioned Goldwitzer, Uebersetz. 
mit Vergl. d. LXX. u. Vidg. u. krit. Anmerk., 1828 ; Kalkar, 
Lam. crit. etexeg. illvstr., 1836; 0. Thenius. Die Elagelieder, 
in Ewzgef. exeg. Handb., 1855 ; W. Engelhardt, Die Elage- 
lieder, 1867. Der Midrash Eclia Rabbati das ist die haggad. 
Ausleg. der Elagelied., zum ersten Jfale ins Deutsche iiber- 
tragen von Dr. Aug. Wunsche, 1881, is an important work. 
E. Gerlach, Die Elagelieder, 1868; L. A. Schneedorfer (Roman 
Catholic), Die Klag. erkl., 1876; J. M. Schonfelder, Die 
Elagelieder des Jeremias nach Rabbinischer Auslegung, 1887. 
On the questions connected with the book, besides the 
various Introductions to the Old Testament, see Th. Noldeke, 
Alt-test. Litteratur, 1868: C. Flbckner, Ueber d. Verf. d. 
Elagel. in d. Tub. Tlieol. Quart alschr., lis. 1877. S. Oettli, 
in Strack and Zocklers Comm., 1889. 



§ 5. EZEKIEL. 

1. The name Ezekiel, ^j^n^ is compounded either 
of ^ P_*n*, God is strong, according to Ewald, or of 
^ P:tCP 5 Him whom God strengthens. LXX. 'Ie^c/arjA. 
and so Sir. xlix. 8. Vulgate Ezechiel. The prophet 
Ezekiel was the son of a priest called Buzi (which 
occurs as a gentilic name in Job xxxii. 2, 6). He was 
carried into captivity with Jehoiachin in B.C. 597 or 
599, and henceforward lived and prophesied " in tho 



188 THE PROPHETS. 

land of the Chaldseans" by the river, or canal, of 
Chebar, "O?, which must carefully be distinguished 
from Habor, li^n, mentioned in 2 Kings xvii. 6. See 
Fried. Delitzsch, Paradies, p. 47 ff. Ezekiel began 
to prophesy five years after the captivity, and 
consequently prophesied at least twenty-two years, 
since his last dated prophecy was in the twenty- 
seventh year of the captivity. He may have, how- 
ever, prophesied for a longer period. He was a 
contemporary of Jeremiah. The scene of Ezekiel's 
labours was Babylon, that of Jeremiah Palestine 
and Egypt. An uncertain tradition states that 
Ezekiel, as well as Jeremiah, was put to death by 
his fellow exiles on account of his denunciations 
of idolatry. 

2. His book naturally falls into three parts : — 
I. The first portion comprises chap, i.-xxiv., and 
consists mainly of prophecies concerning Judah and 
Jerusalem. The introductory section, chap. i. 1- 
iii. 31, is termed by the Jews "the vision of the 
chariot." The phrase " chariot " is used in connection 
with the cherubim in 1 Chron. xxviii. 18, and hence 
the name given to this vision in which the cherubim 
formed so conspicuous a feature. The " living crea- 
tures" mentioned in chap, i. are later described as 
cherubim (see specially chap. x. 20). II. The second 
portion of the book comprises chap, xxv.-xxxii. It con- 
tains prophecies against Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, 
Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt. III. The third portion of the 
book is occupied with the days of Restoration and 
Ptecovery, chap, xxxiii.-xlviii. That portion, written 
after the judgment had fallen on Jerusalem (chap. 



EZEKIEL. 189 

xxxiii. 21 ff.), abounds in remarkable promises of the 
future. The false shepherds and leaders of Israel 
are described in chap, xxxiv., and in contrast to them 
the Messiah is delineated as the " one shepherd," " My 
servant David." Chap. xxxv. is a prophecy against 
Edom, occasioned probably by the unbrotherly part 
acted by Edom in " the day of Jerusalem " mentioned 
in Ps. cxxxvii. 7. Ezekiel is particularly strong on 
the morality of true religion. See chap, xviii. and 
chap, xxxiii. 

3. Ezekiel delighted in allegories. Of these the 
most remarkable is that of Oholah and Oholibah 
(chap, xxiii.). The national restoration of Israel is 
predicted in chap, xxxvii. under the picture of a 
resurrection of bodies of which the dry bones alone 
remained. The prophecy concerning Gog and Magog 
(chap, xxxviii., xxxix.) is not a literal prediction, but 
a prophetical allegory in which the attempts of the 
enemies of Israel to destroy that people in their 
weak state after the Restoration, and Israel's final 
victory, are vividly described. The absurdity of regard- 
ing that prophecy to be a prediction of the future of 
Russia on account of the supposed, but utterly 
mistaken, connection between the names Rosh and 
Russia, MeshecJi and Muscovy, Tubal and Tobolsk (!!) 
has been exposed in my Biblical Essays. Similarly 
allegorical is the description in ' chap, xl.-xlviii. of -the 
new theocracy, of the new temple erected, not in the 
old Jerusalem, but in an ideal city, on an " exceeding 
high mountain." From the sanctuary of the new 
temple living waters are described as flowing down- 
wards, and, although unfed by affluent streams, as 



190 THE PROPHETS. 

ever deepening along their course, until they flow into 
the Dead Sea and heal its waters. The new city- 
described by Ezekiel is called " Jehovah Shammah," 
" Jehovah is there." When from his Old Testament 
standpoint, Ezekiel describes the land as again divided 
among the tribes, he is careful to note that the 
strangers who shall sojourn in Israel are to have equal 
rights with the children of Israel themselves. The 
whole description is consequently allegorical, or ideal, 
and not literal. The visions of future blessings were 
described by the prophet under Old Testament forms 
and figures. 

Some modern critics maintain, however, that 
Ezekiel's description of the reorganization of the 
priesthood and the temple services and ceremonies 
was intended to be taken literally. Those critics 
argue that the arrangements described by Ezekiel 
were older than those laid down in the portion of the 
Pentateuch termed by them " the Priests' Code " (see 
before, p. 89 ff.). These arguments are very doubtful, 
and by no means as cogent as often represented. The 
soundest defence against such novel views is to be 
found in insisting on the ideal and allegorical character 
of the prophecy. The genuineness of Ezekiel is 
admitted by all critics of mark. The Jews regarded 
" the vision of the chariot," i.e. the vision of the 
cherubim in chap. i. and chap. x. 9 (see before, p. 188) 
as a synopsis of theosophy; the first chapter of 
Genesis being similarly viewed as a synopsis of 
cosmogony. Hence the study of both those portions 
of Scripture was forbidden to persons under thirty 
years of age. 



DANIEL. 191 

4. Among the older commentaries on this book may be 
mentioned those of J. CEcolampadius Comm. in Ezeck., 1543, 
folio; V. Strigelii, Ezech. proph. ad Heb. writ, recogn. et 
argum. et schol. Must)'., 1564, 1575, and 1579 ; Casp. Sanctii, 
Comm. in Ezech. et Dan., 1619; Hieron. Pradi et J. Bapt. 
Villalpandi in Ezeck. ex plan, et appar. urbis et tempi. Hleros. 
comm. Must., Kom., 1596-1604, 3 vols., folio ; H. Venema, 
Led. Acad, ad Ezech., 1790. Among the newer are : 
Rosenmiiller, Scholia, 2nd edit., 1823 ; Maurer in vol. ii. of his 
Comm., 1836 ; Havernick, Comm. iiber den Proph. Ezechiel, 
1843; Ewald, in Proph. d. alt. Bundes, vol. 2, 2te Ausg., 
1868 ; E. Henderson. Ezekiel with Comm., critical, etc., 1855; 
Kliefoth, 1864 ; Hengstenberg, Die Weissagungen des Proph. 
Ezech., 2 vols, 1867, 1868, translated into English, T. and T. 
Clark ; Patrick Fairbairn. Ezekiel and the Booh of his 
Prophecy, mith a JYew Translation, 3rd. edit., 1863. KeLL 1868, 
English translation published bj T. and T. Clark ; 2nd edit. 
of the German work with 4 lith. plates, 1882; F. W. J. 
Schroder, in Lange, 1873 ; F. Hitzig, Ezekiel, 1847, in Kurzg. 
Ex. Handu., by R. Smend, with 8 woodcuts and plan, 1880 ; 
J. Knabenbauer (Rom. Cath.), Comm. in Ezech., Paris, 1890. 
Very important is C. H. Cornill, Das Buck des Proph. Ezechiel, 
1886 ; von Orelli, Ezech. and Mm. Propk., 1888, in Strack and 
Zocklers Coram. ; Ernst Kiihn, EzeckieVs Gesickt von Tempel, 
Mit 1 Tafel, 1882 ; W. Xeumann, Die Wasser des Lebens (Ezek. 
xlvii. 1-12), 1S49. Important articles on Der Brandopferaltar 
Ezekiels (Ezek. xliii : 13-17), by C. H. Cornill and R. Farber, 
are to be found in Luthardt's Zeitsckrift fiir kirch. Wissen- 
sckaft, for the years 1883 and 1884. See Appendix, 



§ 6. Daniel. 

1. Daniel pKHJ^) was one of the captives carried 
away from Judak during the reign of Jehoiakim. In 
addition to the facts of his personal history related in 
the book which bears his name, nothing more is known 



192 THE PROPHETS. 

of him, except that Ezekiel mentions his holy life, 
and places him in that respect on a par with Noah 
and Job (Ezek. xiv. 14-20). Ezekiel also speaks of 
Daniel as a paragon of wisdom (chap, xxviii. 3) in 
language which, though the phraseology is different, 
recalls in substance the statements set forth in Daniel 
v. 11-12, and in other places of the book. The addi- 
tions to the story of Daniel in the LXX. are intrinsi- 
cally of no historical value, but important as showing 
that many stories about Daniel, which are not con- 
tained in the Book of Daniel, were current in the 
centuries before Christ. Josephus does not, indeed, 
mention the legend of Susanna, or of Bel and the 
Dragon, found in the LXX., but he, too, makes 
additions to the history by stating that Daniel and 
his three companions belonged to the family of 
Zedekiah (Antiq., x. 10, 1). Moreover he mentions 
additional incidents connected with the story of the 
den of lions (Antiq., x. 11, 6), and the erection of 
a remarkable tower by Daniel at Ecbatane (Antiq., 
x. 11, 7). Such legends prove Daniel to have been 
a well-known historical personage prior to the Grecian 
period. For the growth of all such legends requires 
considerable time. The legends concerning Daniel 
were multiplied in later times. There is a curious 
version of the story of Bel and the Dragon found in 
the Midrash Bereshith on chap, xxviii. 12, Parasha 
ixviii. 

2. The Book of Daniel consists of two parts. I. 
The first contains histories connected with the life of 
Daniel (chap, i.-vi.). II. The second part contains 
four visions of Daniel (chap, vii.-xii.). The book is 



DANIEL. 193 

written in two languages or dialects. Chap. ii. 46-vii 
inclusive is in Aramaic (miscalled Chaldee), and the 
rest of the book is in Hebrew. The Aramaic was 
probably the original language of the entire book, 
the Hebrew portion being only a translation from 
an Aramaic original. Although Aramaic may have 
been used as a kind of diplomatic language, it 
is certain that it could not have been the language 
spoken by the ChaldaBans, or wise men of Babylon. 
The adverb JVD^S (chap. ii. 4), translated in the 
English Versions, " in Syriac," indicates not that the 
Chaldseans addressed Nebuchadnezzar in that lan- 
guage, but that, from that particular place in the 
book onwards, the copyist, or editor of the work, 
quotes verbatim from an Aramaic original, of which 
the present Book of Daniel probably formed only a 
portion. 

An exact parallel occurs in Ezra iv. 7, where it is 
said " the adversaries of Judah " wrote to the Persian 
king against the Jews. The remark is there made 
that the copy of the letter used by the compiler of 
that book was written J"I > P!^, i.e., in Aramaic cha- 
racters, and not in the old Hebrew (see remarks on 
p. 17 ff). The letter is further said to have been 
duly interpreted, i.e., translated, although into what 
language is not stated. Then follows the word 
JV?>V., indicating that Ezra iv. 8 to chap. vi. 18 
was copied from original documents in Aramaic. 

Although the unity of the Book of Daniel is generally 
conceded (see App.), it has the appearance rather of a 
series of excerpts than of a continuous narrative, and 
the hypothesis that the present book is an abridgment 



194 THE PROPHETS. 

of a larger work (partly preserved in its original lan- 
guage and partly translated) has much in its favour. 
The critics, however, are not agreed on these points. 
The phenomenon of a book written partly in one 
dialect and partly in another is also exhibited in 
the Book of Ezra. The fact has not been satisfac- 
torily explained in the case of Daniel (although often 
attempted) by the difference in the subject-matter 
of the contents. The statements mentioned in chap. i. 1 
cause serious difficulties, but it is somewhat hasty to 
conclude that those statements are incorrect ; and 
even if incorrect, the error may be the fault of the 
translator. 

3. Two of the more remarkable of the miracles 
recorded in the Book of Daniel are referred to in 
1 Mace. ii. 59, 60. The book was extensively used 
by the author of the Book of Baruch, and by the 
writer of "the Epistle of Jeremiah" improperly 
attached to that work. The Book of Daniel is by 
the majority of modern critics assigned to some date 
between B.C. 167 and 164. But the alterations made 
in the text of the LXX. version, with the object of 
modifying passages so as to make them coincide more 
distinctly with the Maccabean period, tend rather to 
prove the Book of Daniel itself to be of earlier date. 
The references to Babylonian history, Babylonian 
names and manners, are in favour of its early com- 
position, and some of these points have been confirmed 
by recent discovery. The Persian words in the book 
support this view, for such words would not have been 
used in the Greek period. On the other hand 
fact of Greek words occurring in the work (whicu. 



DANIEL. 195 

though once denied is now generally admitted by 
scholars) tells on the other side. The account of the 
Median rule is in favour of its early date, and con- 
firmatory of the theory that the book is an abridg- 
ment of a work written by Daniel, though pro- 
bably incorporating later additions. The additions 
seem to have been mainly inserted in chap, xi., 
the prophecies of which form the chief difficulties of 
the book. The miracles recorded in the book do 
not constitute its real difficulties. For if miracles 
ever were necessary, it was when the people of 
Jehovah were captives in Babylon, and the victory 
over Israel was looked upon as a victory over 
Jehovah Himself. If, however, chap. xi. xii. had 
been written subsequent to the overthrow of Antiochus 
Epiphanes, the end of that monarch would have 
been differently described. The phenomena alluded 
to point in the direction of a re-editing of the work 
shortly before the close of the Maccabean period. 
The Messianic prophecies found in the book are of 
special importance. It is impossible here to touch 
upon the evidence in favour of the book to be derived 
from a critical review of its prophecies. The book is 
alluded to by our Lord in Matt. xxiv. 15, and in other 
places. It lies at the base of several of the prophecies 
of the New Testament, especially those of the Book of 
Bevelation. The position which Daniel occupies in 
the Hebrew canon, its being placed in the Hagiographa 
and not among the prophets, is no argument against its 
authenticity. Nor is the omission of Daniel's name from 
the list of Jesus Sirach (chap, xlix.) more remarkable 
than the omission there of the name of Ezra. 



196 THE PROPHETS. 

The writer of this Introduction hopes shortly to 
publish a commentary on Daniel in the Pulpit Com- 
mentary. In that commentary he intends to point out 
that even if the latest date assigned to the composition 
of the Book of Daniel were proved correct, the book 
displays a knowledge of the future which can only be 
ascribed to Divine inspiration. All attempts to make 
out the fourth empire of Daniel (spoken of in the dream 
of Nebuchadnezzar, chap, ii, and in Daniel's vision, 
chap, vii.) to be the kingdom of Alexander's succes- 
sors have proved decided failures. The fourth kingdom 
can be no other than the Roman, which is described 
in both the passages referred to as having tv:o distinct 
stages : (1) an undivided stage, in which the empire 
was strong as iron, and was under a central govern- 
ment ; (2) a divided stage, in which it was split up into 
a plurality of kingdoms, indicated by the ten toes of 
the image (chap, ii.) and by the ten horns of the 
beast (chap, vii.), which kingdoms no device or power 
of man, or any schemes of matrimonial alliances, 
could ever contrive to weld together again. It was 
in this weakened stage of the Roman empire that 
another power was to supplant some of these king- 
doms, and bear general rule over the whole, but 
without sufficient strength to make them coalesce into 
one strong empire. An author, or compiler, who had 
the acquaintance with the past history of Babylon and 
Persia which is displayed in the book, could not pos- 
sibly regard the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes as being 
in any degree whatever as powerful, still less stronger, 
than the empires of Babylon, Persia, or Greece. 
4. The Greek version of Theodotion for a long 



DANIEL. 197 

period did service for the LXX. version, until the 
latter was re-discovered in the Chigian Library at 
Rome, and published in 1772. The LXX. version is 
remarkable for many important omissions and addi- 
tions. The principal apocryphal additions to the Book 
of Daniel consist of (a) The Song of the Three Children, 
preceded by the prayer of Azariah, found in the LXX. 
and Vulgate, at chap. iii. 24-90. This addition was 
probably composed originally in Hebrew or Aramaic. 
(b) The Story of Susanna, which in the Yulgate occurs 
Dan. xiii, forms in -the LXX. a separate book with 
a title of its own. The story has received considerable 
additions in some of the Versions. It is devoid of any 
historical value, but was designed to teach a moral 
lesson. The Greek text is probably the original, (c) 
The Story of Bel and the Dragon forms also in the 
LXX. a separate book entitled " From the Prophecy 
of Habbakuk son of Jesus of the tribe of Levi." In 
the version of Theodotion that story is attached to 
the Book of Daniel. All these stories are fabulous, 
although they possess some interest. 

5. The commentaries on Daniel are innumerable. On no 
other book, save the Book of the Revelation in the New Testa- 
ment, has so much worthless matter been written in the shape 
of exegesis. Of the more important critical commentaries of 
modern days may be mentioned L. Bertholdt, Daniel aus den 
Bel).- Aram, neu iibersetzt u. erkl., 1806, 1808 ; v. Lengerke, 
Komm., 1S35 ; H. A. C. Havernick, Commentar, 1832; Neue 
krit. Untersuchungen, 1838 ; R. Kranichfeld, Das Buch Daniel 
erlil., 1868 ; Th. Kliefoth, 1868 ; C. F. Keil, 1869 ; A. Hilgen- 
feld, Die Proph. Ezra und Daniel, etc., 1863 ; Ph. S. Desprez, 
Daniel, or the Apocalypse of the Old Testament, 1865. E. 
B. Pusey, Daniel the Prophet, 1864 ; 3rd edit. 1869. Pusey'a 



103 THE PROPHETS. 

statements as to the views of his opponents are not always 
reliable. Zockler, in Lange's JBibelwerk, 1870, English trans- 
lation ; Auberlen, Daniel u. die Offenbarung, 1854, 2nd ed. 
1887 ; English translation by T. and T. Clark. J. Meinhold, 
Das Buck Daniel ausgelegt, 1889, in Strack and Zockler' s 
Comm. ; also his Beitrdge z. Erkl. des Buck, 1888. Fabre 
d'Envien (Roman Catholic), Le Livre du prophete Daniel, 
Paris-Toulouse, 1888 (2 vols). Highly interesting is the Com- 
mentary on the Booh of Daniel by Jephet Ibn Ali, the Karaite, 
edited and translated by Prof. D. S. Margoliouth, in the 
Anec. Oxon., 1889. 

Besides the above, the following are important. (1) In favour 
of the authenticity : Hengstenberg's Beitrdge, 1831, trans- 
lated into English, T. and T. Clark ; S.' P. Tregelles, Defence of 
Autlientieity ; 1852 ; J. M. Fuller, Essay on the Authenticity oj 
Booh, of Daniel, 1864 ; and his commentary in Speaker's 
Commentary, 1875, 1888 ; W. Volck, Vindicia? Danielica. 1866 ; 
C. P. Caspari, Zur Einfuhrung in das Buck Daniel, 1869 ; 
F. Lenormant, Les sciences occultes en Asie, 1874 [on Dan. 
i.-vi.] ; R. Payne Smith, Expos, of the H'ist. Portion of the 
Writings of Daniel, 1886. (2) Against the authenticity : F. 
Bleek, TJeber Verf. u. Zvceck des B. Dan,, in the Berl. Tlieol. 
Zeitschrift, iii. ; T. K. Cheyne's article in Encyclopaedia Brit, 
9th edit.; R. Smend, Jild. Apocalyptik in Stade's Zeitschrift, 
1885; H. G. Kirms, Comm. hist, critica, 1828. 

There are many important monographs on portions. G. S. 
Faber, The Seventy Weeks, 1811 ; E. Schrader, Die Sage vom 
Walinsinn Nebucli. in the Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1881 ; C. H. 
Cornill, Die siebzig Jahncoche, 1889 ; F. Fraidl, Die Exegese 
der siebzig Wochen Daniels in der alten v. mittleren Zeit, 
Graz, 1883 ; Th. Noldeke, on Dan. v. 25 ff. in the Zeitschrift 
fur Assyriologie, Nov. 18S6, and G. Hoffmann in the same 
journal for 1887 ; J. Meinhold, Beitrdgen, zur Erkldrung des 
B. Daniel, 18S8 ; van Lennep, De zeventig Jaarwccken van 
Daniel, 188S. 



CHAPTER XVI. 

B. THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS. 

~T> ESIDES the commentaries noticed, pp. 172-3, on the pro- 
-*—* phets in general, the following special commentaries are 
of importance : Ribera, Comm. in libr. duod. Proph., 1590 ; J. 
Calvini, Prcelect. in Duodecim Proph. Min., Geneva, 1610 ; 
Casp. Sanctii, Comm. in duodec. proph. min., 1621 ; J. Drusii, 
Comm., 1627; J. Schmidt, 1685, 1687, 1689; J. Tamovius, Comm. 
in proph. min., c. prasf. J. B. Carpzov, 1688, 1706 ; J. Marck, 
Comm. in Proph. Min., 4 vols., 4to, 1696-1701, and 1734 folio ; 
J. D. Dathe, 3rd edit., 1790 ; G. L. Bauer, Die U. Proph., 
1786, 1790; P. Schegg (Roman Catholic), Die hi. Proph. ubers. 
v. erll., 2 vols., 1854, 1862 ; J. A. Theiner (Rom. Cath.), 1828, 
fifth part cf his Comm. iiber die heilige Schrift. der A. T.; E. 
Henderson, The Minor Prophets, translated with comm. crit., 
phil. and exeg., 1845, 2nd ed. 1858 ; Hitzig, 3te Aufl., 1863, 4te 
Aufl., edit, by Steiner, 1881 ; Keil, 3te Aufl., 1888 ; Bishop 
Wordsworth, 1875 ; E. B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets, with a 
comm. explan. and pract., 1877 ; Knabenbauer (Rom. Cath.), 
Comm. in proph. min., Paris, 1886 ; K. vcn Orelli, see p. 191; 
Archdeacon Farrar's Lives and Times of the Minor Prophets in 
Nisbet's series of Men of the Bible, 1890, deserves notice. In 
Lange's Bibclwerk the writers are : O. Schmoller on Hosea, 
Joel, and Amos, 1872 ; P. Kleinert on Obadiah to Zephaniah, 
1876 ; J. P. Lange on Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, 1876. In 
the English, or rather American, edition there are considerable 
additions by American scholars. The post-exilian prophets are 
commented on in that edition : Haggai, by J. E. McCurdy ; 
T W. Chambers, Zechariah ; J, Packard, Malachi. 1874. In 



200 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS. 

the Speaker's Commentary, Ezekiel to Malachi compose one 
volume, 1876, Preb. Huxtable has there written on Hosea 
and Jonah ; R. Gandell on A mos, Ndhum, and Zephaniah ; F. 
Meyrickon Joel, and on Obadiah; S. Clark on Micah; F. C. 
Cook on Habahliuk ; W. Drake on Harjgai, Zecliariah, and 
Malachi. Principal Douglas, of Free Ch. Coll., Glasgow, has 
written on The Six Intermediate Minor Prophets (i.e., Obadiah 
to Zephaniah), in T. and T. Clark's series of Handbooks, 1890. 



a. The Nine Pre-exilian Prophets. 
§ 1. Hosea. 

1. Hosea, tf^fn, salvation, Gr. 'flo-^e, was the son 
of Beeri, of whom nothing is known. He prophesied, 
like Isaiah, according to chap. i. 1, under Ifzziah, 
Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, and during a portion of the 
reign of Jeroboam II., king of Israel, whose reign in 
part synchronised with that of Uzziah. The Book of 
Hosea, being the longest, is placed first among the 
minor prophets, which are in the Hebrew canon 
regarded as forming together one book. He was a 
member of the northern kingdom of Israel, and 
prophesied somewhat later than Amos, with whose 
prophecies he seems to have been acquainted. Comp. 
Hosea iv. 3 with Amos viii. 8; and Hosea viii. 14, 
the phraseology of the latter part of which verse 
occurs seven times in Amos i. 4-ii. 5. The super- 
scription (Hosea i. 1) causes some difficulty, because 
no allusion is made in the book to the Assyrian 
invasions which occurred during the reigns of the 
kings there mentioned. The superscription, however, 
may have been appended by a later editor. 



THE BOOK OF HOSEA. 201 

2. The Book of Hosea consists of two portions, 
probably written at different periods of the prophet's 
life. I. Chap, i.-iii. describe the infidelity of Israe. 
to God and God's longsuffering and enduring love. 
The personal history of the prophet's own life seems 
here employed in an allegorical manner. The woman 
with whom Hosea was led by Providence (like Samson 
in Judges xiv. 1-4) to ally himself in marriage, proved 
unfaithful to her marriage vow, and had to be 
divorced. Under a Divine leading, the prophet was 
led to take her back from her life of sin, and restore 
her to her former position. He relates the story of 
his own domestic trials as a picture on the one hand 
of Israel's faithlessness towards Jehovah, and on the 
other of the everlasting love manifested by Israel's 
God. This appears to be the truest and simplest in- 
terpretation of the difficulties in the opening chapters, 
and is that adopted by the best modern critics. II. 
The second portion of the book (chap, iv.-xiv.) sets 
forth the guilt of Israel in general, the sins of both 
priests and people (chap, iv.-viii.), the punishment 
coming upon Israel (chap, ix.-xi.), and the readiness 
of Jehovah, notwithstanding the sin of His people, to 
receive them graciously when penitent, and to pour 
a blessing on them (chap, xii.-xiv.). 

3. The unity of the book is unquestioned. Its 
language is peculiarly difficult, and it is often hard 
to comprehend the prophet's meaning. The first part 
is written in prose, the second in poetry. The latter 
chapters of the book appear to have been composed 
at very different times, and were probably put together 
at the close of the prophet's life. 



WBLVE MIX OR PROPHE 

4. The following are the most important commentaries on 
the book : D. Parens, Comm. tilutt. cum trantl. trip, ex Heb. 
et Ckald.. etc., 1605 ; Seb. Schmidt Com*., 1687 ; EL t. d. 
Hardt, 1703 ; J. H. Manger, Comm. im Ho$eam, 1786 : Ann*, 
hist. exeg. im Hos^ anct. L, J. Uhland. 1785-1797. Ed. Po- 
cocke's Kngh'yh Commentary on Rosea is the largest and most 
nrr :t..iz.z :i:':.: :'.irr : -^entariea It was first pnbbshed in 
1685, and is given in his Work*, along with his Commentary on 
Joel, Mlcah. and Malachi, 2 vols, folio, 1740. Of the more 
modern, besides those mentioned on p. 199 are : Schroder, Die 
Propk. Ho*.. Joel. Amos, 1839 ; A. Simeon, Der Propk, Ho*, 
erkl. v. nbersetzt^ 1851 : A. Wnnsche, Der Propk. Ha*, iber*. 
». erkL mit Bemmtzmmg der Targg. a. der j ml. Andeger, 1868, 
special] v important for the Jewish interpretations; W.Xowack, 
Der Propk. Ho*, eri.. 1880 ; Anton. Scholz (Boman Catholic), 
Comm. z. Bmeke de* Propk. Hos^ 1883 : T. K. Cheyne, Hosea, 
with JTote* and Introduction. 1884, Cambridge Bible for 
-:::::.-. zz. : zzzzz:-ri ri:z::z. in :-vr. izz :-.'.'.. \z: :~;.:r:::. 
?::-: = :•: — - ::■:•". ~.:'z. '.'a ':•:•:> ire :.i:z,H:i in Zt:: ; :;i:-::: ? 
Ckristology, and in Hoffmann's Weusagmug u. BrfsUuug. See 
also Franz Delitzsch, Hose* *. seim Wei**agumg*bueh, in the 
Erlangen Zeit*ehr. jur Prot. «. Etreke, 1854 : Kurtz. Die 
Eke de* Propk. Ho*^ 1859 ; Bedslob, Die Integrity d. Stelle 
Ho*, rii. 4-10 im Frage getteUt. 1843 ; A. H. Sayce. Book of 
He*ea im the Ligkt of Atryriam Besearck, in the Jewish 
Quarterly Beciew, for 1889. 



§ 2. Joel. 

1. Joel, **P\ whose God t* Jehovah, LXX. ItnfA, 
was the son of Fethoel, and prophesied in Jndah and 
Jerusalem. Owing to his peculiar mention of the 
priests, he may have been a priest-prophet ; but little 
more can he learned about him or his family 
there is no allusion in his prophecies to a king of 
Judah. and he addresses himself chiefly to the elders. 



THE BOOK OF JOEL. 203 

it has been conjectured that he prophesied during 
the long minority of king Jehoash of Judah (2 Kings 
sii.). The enemies of Judah spoken of in his pro- 
phecies are Tyre and Sidon, along with the Philistines, 
■who had sold Jewish captives into the hands of the 
Greeks. Egypt and Edom are also mentioned in 
the book; but not a word is spoken concerning 
Assyria or Babylon, or of the later enemies of Israel. 
Hence, though some have endeavoured to assign the 
book to as late a period as the Maccabean times, the 
grounds for doing so are very insufficient. The locusts 
described by Joel have been often supposed to be 
allegorical of the northern foes. But the language 
of chap. ii. in general (see ver. 4, etc.) is more 
naturally interpreted of an actual plague of locusts 
and other devouring insects (see specially ver. 25). 
The book consists mainly of one grand oration, com- 
prising : (I.) a lamentation and call to repentance 
(chap. i. 1-ii. 17); (II.) with, in the second part, the 
result of prayer, and a description of the blessings 
of the future (chap. ii. 18-end). The latter portion 
contains passages which refer to the Messianic days. 
The final struggle of good and evil is represented 
allegorically as taking place at Jerusalem, in the 
valley of Jehoshaphat, where the conclusive victory 
is gained, and Judah is delivered from her foes. The 
language employed does not admit of literal inter- 
pretation. Most remarkable is Joel's prophecy of 
the outpouring of the Spirit referred to in the New 
Testament. 

2. Joel, in its style and character of its contents, 
is one of the most remarkable of the books of the 



204 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS. 

Old Testament. The pre-exilian date of the book, 
with certain variations in detail, is defended by 
Hengstenberg, Havernick, Credner, Movers in Bill. 
Chronologie, 1834; Hitzig; Ewald; Hoffmann in 
Weissagung u. Erfullung ; Knobel, Prophetismus,lS37 ; 
Delitzsch, in Luth. Zeitschrift, 1851 j Wunsche ; 
Schrader in de Wette's Einleitung Others, as 
Schroder and Kuenen, Prophets and Prophecy, consider 
it to have been written shortly before the exile. 
Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift f. wissensch. Theol., x., Yatke, 
in his Einleitung, and Ad. Merx assign it to the 
post-exilian period, after B.C. 445. 

3. Besides the commentaries noted p. 173 and p. 199, the 
following are of importance : — J. Leusden, Joel explic. in quo 
text. Ebr. per paraplir. Chald., Mas. magn. et parv., perque 
trium prcestantiss. Rabb. Jarcki, Aben Ezr. and B. Kimclu 
comm., etc., cvi in fine adj. est Obadias eodemfere rnodo illust., 
1657 ; C. Hasgei, Proph. Joelis, 1697. Among the moderns 
are A. Svanborg, Joel, Lat. versus et notisphil. illustr., TJpsala, 
1806; Holzhausen, 1829; Credner, 1831; E. Meier, 1841; 
A. Wiinsche, Die Weissagungen des Proph. J. ilbers. u. erM., 
1872 ; J. A. Karle, Joel ben Pethuel propheta comm., 1877 ; 
Ad. Merx., Die Proph. des Joel und ihre Ausleger, etc., 
beigegeb. ist der Aethiopische Text des Joel bearb. von Prof 
Dr. A. Dillmann, 1879. This work is specially important for 
its valuable history of interpreters from the earliest times to 
the Keformation. A. Scholz (Rom. Cath.), Comm. z. Buche 
des proph. Joel, 1885 ; G-. Preuss, Bie Prophetie Joel, 1889. 
Important is the work of an American scholar, W. L. Pearson, 
The Prophecy of Joel : its unity, its aim, and the date of 
its comp., Leipzig, 1885. Later still, and in favour of a post- 
exilic date, is H. Holzinger, Sprachcharacter und Abfassungs- 
zeit des Buches Joel, in Zeitschrift fur A. T. Wissenschaft , 
1889. S solaee A. B. Davidson in Expositor, March, 1888 ; 



THE BOOK OF AMOS. 205 

S. Oettli, Der Prophet Joel, Vortrag, 1888 ; Eugene la 
Savoureux, Le pr ophite Joel : introduction critique, traduction 
et comm., 1888. 



§ 3. Amos. 

1. Amos C^tf, burden, Gr. \A/>uos), was a shepherd 
or herdman uf Tekoa, five miles south of Bethlehem, 
and ten distant from Jerusalem. He was originally 
a dresser of sycamore or fig-mulberry trees. He 
prophesied in the days of Uzziah and of Jeroboam II., 
and was somewhat earlier than Isaiah, and a con- 
temporary of Hosea. Amid the successes of Jeroboam 
II. he prophesied of coming judgment and defeat. 
He visited the northern kingdom, and carried on his 
prophetic work there. Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, 
grossly exaggerated the meaning of the prophecies of 
Amos (chap. vii. 10-17), and sought to stir up 
Jeroboam II., king of Israel, against him. But the 
prophet boldly continued his work, relying on his 
Divine commission. Chap. i. and ii. announce judg- 
ment upon the nations, upon Syria,, Philistia, Tyre, 
Edom, Moab, Judah, and Israel. Chap, iii.-vi. 
contain prophecies concerning Israel. Chap, vii.-ix. 
10 give a series of visions indicative of coming judg- 
ment. The book closes with promises of future 
blessings (chap. ix. 11-15). 

2. See, as before, pp. 173, 199. Among other commentaries 
may be mentioned: J. Gerhardi, Adn.posth. in Proph. Amos 
et Jon., 1676 ; J. C. Harenberg, Amos proph. exposit., 1763 ; 
L. J. Uhland, Annot. ad loca quced. Am., 1779 ; J. S. Vater, 
Amos ubers. u erltl. 810 ; G. Baur, Der Prophet Amos erkl., 



206 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS. 

1847; G. Hoffmann, Versuohe zu Amos in Zeitschrift filr dis 
A. T. Wissenschaft, 1883. ISce A. B. Davidson in Expositor, 
March and September, 1887. 



§ 4. Obadiah. 

1. The name of Obadiah (nj*Wtf, worshipper of 
Jehovah, Gr. 'O/SaSia?, 'A/JoYa?) is very common. The 
Book of Obadiah is directed against Edom. There 
is much uncertainty as to the time in which it was 
written, and as to the events to which it refers. 
Many clauses contained in verses 1-9 are found verbatim 
in the Book of Jeremiah (chap. xlix. 7-22), so that the 
question arises which prophet is to be regarded as the 
original? If Jeremiah quoted from Obadiah, then 
the prophecy of the latter may have been as early 
as the reign of Jehoram king of Judah, when, after 
the revolt of Edom from Judah, Jerusalem was sacked 
by the united Philistines and Arabians (2 Chron. 
xxi. 16, 17). It is quite possible that the Edomites 
may then have acted as related in verses 11-14. 
In favour of the early date of the prophecy, it 
is urged that no mention is made of Assyria or 
Babylon, and moreover Obadiah ver. 17 is closely 
akin to Joel iii. 5. On the other hand, it has been 
urged: (a) that if Jeremiah had the prophecy of 
Obadiah before him, he would probably have quoted 
more than its opening portion; and (b) that Ps. 
cxxxvii. 7 sheds light on Obad. 11-14. But these 
arguments are not decisive. It is quite possible 
that both Obadiah and Jeremiah quoted from some 
earlier prophecy. On the whole, the arguments in 



THE BOOK OF JO NATL 207 

favour of the early date of Obadiah seem to be the 
stronger. But the matter is by no means certain. 

2. The wildest legends exist with regard to Obadiah, such 
as that he was identical with the Obadiah who was over 
Ahab's household (1 Kings xviii.). So Josephus and the 
Talmud. He has also been identified with the captain of fifty- 
spared by Elijah (2 Kings i. 13) ; or supposed to have been 
a converted Edomite, or the husband of the widow-woman 
of Zarephath mentioned 1 Kings xvii. Among the special 
commentaries on the book that of Leusden has been men- 
tioned on p. 204 ; Aug. Pfeiffer, Comm., 1660 ; J. G. Scbroer, 
1766 ; C. F. Schnurrer, Dissert, phil. in Obad., 1787 ; H. A. 
Grimm, Jones et Obad. orac. Syriace, ed. Duisburg, 1799 ; 
Venema, Lectt. in Ob., with additions in Verschuir, Opusc, 
1810 ; L. Hendewerck, Obadj. orac. in Idumoeos, 1836 ; C. P. 
Caspari, Ber prophet Obadja, 1842, is of special importance ; 
W. Seydel, Vaticin. Obad. sec. text. Heb. et Ohald., etc., 1869 ; 
R. F. Weidner, Studies in Obadiah in the Lutheran Church 
Review, Oct. 1887 (American). See alsc pp. 173, 199 ff. 



§ 5. Jonah. 

Jonah, ('"Ul 1 , dove, Gr. 'Iwms) the son of Amittai 
mentioned in this book is no doubt identical with 
the prophet of the name who lived in the days of 
Jeroboam II. (2 Kings xiv. 25). If the book was 
actually written by Jonah it would be the earliest 
book of prophecy in the Sacred Records. The Book 
of Jonah, however, nowhere claims to have been 
written by that prophet. Its history is never referred 
to in any one of the canonical writings of the Old 
Testament. Jonah is, however, mentioned among the 
minor prophets in 2 Esdras (4th Esdras) i. 40, but 



208 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS. 

chap. i. and ii. of that book are well-known to be 
additions by a later hand to a book which is in itself 
of very questionable antiquity (see p. 139). Two refer- 
ences to Jonah's prophecy concerning Nineveh occur in 
Tobit xiv. 4, 8, where his prophecy is spoken of as 
still awaiting fulfilment. The story of Jonah in the 
whale's belly is referred to as historical in 3 Mace 
vi. 8, and by Josephus, Antiq., ix. 10, 2. Orthodox 
critics have generally regarded the narrative as 
history, on account of the references to it in the 
New Testament. If the book had been regarded as 
an historical narrative when the Hebrew canon was 
arranged, it would, however, scarcely have been in- 
serted among the prophetical books, or have been placed 
among them in the order in which it now stands. 

The difficulties in the way of regarding the work 
as historical are serious. Apart from the marvels 
related in the story, the utter silence of the Hebrew 
Scriptures in reference to the supposed history is most 
unaccountable. Jonah himself was unquestionably an 
historical personage (2 Kings xiv. 25). The conver- 
sion of the Ninevites at the preaching of Jonah, if 
historical fact, casts into the shade all the other events 
recorded from the days of Moses to the Restoration. 
Not one of the prophets who speak of Assyria con- 
tain the slightest allusion to an event which in itself 
would have placed Nineveh's guilt in the darkest light. 
Most of the orthodox commentators have felt the 
latter difficulty, and accordingly have assumed the 
conversion of the Ninevites to have been merely a 
transient incident. 

It has also been tacitly assumed that our Lord 



THE BOOK OF JONAH. 209 

viewed the narrative as historical fact. But such a 
conclusion is inconsistent with the references to the 
story in Luke xi. 29 ff. ; Matt. xii. 39 ff. The repent- 
ance of the Ninevites is not referred to by Christ as 
a merely transient movement, but as a great fact, 
the fruits of which are yet to be manifested in the 
day of judgment to the confusion of the men of 
Christ's own generation. The book itself does not 
give any countenance to the idea that the conversion 
of the Ninevites was a mere passing wave of popular 
feeling. If it were only such, it might be asked how 
did it differ essentially from the conversion of the 
thousands of the men of our Lord's generation who, 
under temporary conviction of sin, were "baptized 
with the baptism of repentance " under the preaching 
of John the Baptist? But if the repentance of 
" Nineveh, that great city," was indeed an historical 
fact, if its people indeed repented of their murders, 
their sorceries, their idolatry, fornication, and thefts 
(comp. Rev. ix. 21), on what principle is the silence 
about such a remarkable fact of the Book of 
Kings, and the silence of such prophets as Isaiah, 
Jeremiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, to be accounted for? 
Every one of our Lord's references to the Book of 
Jonah harmonises with the theory that the book was 
a book of prophecy, a prophetic parable, in which by 
the repentant Ninevites those Gentiles were repre- 
sented—and they were not few in number (comp. 
Esther viii. 17) — who in the days of Israel's exilo 
beheld the wonders wrought by Jehovah in their 
midst, and "turned unto God from idols to serve a 
living and true God." Whatever theory of the book 

u 



210 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS. 

be correct, our Lord con Id have referred to it in 
no other way than He did. The New Testament 
references decide nothing, except that the book is in 
some way or other a book of prophecy. Consequently, 
the question whether the book is also historical must 
be decided from internal evidence alone. 

If the book be a prophetic parable, or (as Kleinert 
styles it) a historico-symbolical prophecy, the place it 
occupies in the Hebrew canon is most appropriate. 
The Divine inspiration and grandeur of the book 
become then more apparent, and all the difficulties 
connected with it completely vanish. Israel is suit- 
ably represented in such a prophetic allegory by the 
prophet Jonah, for Jonah was one of the earliest of 
the prophets. Israel " could only be properly repre- 
sented in an allegory by a prophet, and only by a 
prophet who (owing to the incidents of his persona] 
history being unknown) might without violence to 
actual history form a leading character in such a 
divinely-constructed parable." The allegory depicts 
the history of Israel, and under it the history of the 
Messiah, just as the title " servant of Jehovah " is 
used of Israel generally, then of the faithful in Israel, 
and lastly of the Messiah. See p. 179. 

The critics who have denied the historical character 
of the book have usually regarded it as (1) purely 
legendary, or (2) as containing legends resting on some 
slight basis of fact, or (3) as wholly fictitious, depending 
for its importance solely on its moral or religious 
teaching. The view which regards it as a prophetico- 
historical allegory is entirely different, and quite con- 
sistent with a belief in the Divine inspiration and 



THE BOOK OF JON AIL 211 

authority of the book. According to the latter theory, 
Jonah represents Israel fleeing from the duty imposed 
on the nation in its prophetic character as a witness 
for God. The sleep of Jonah, the storm on the sea, 
Jonah's bold confession of faith when aroused from 
slumber, admit of easy explanation. The world- 
power is actually represented in the prophets as 
a sea-monster (see Isa. xxvii. ; Jer. li. 34). That sea- 
monster is represented as, in the person of Nebu- 
chadnezzar, swallowing up Israel (li. 34). Bel, the 
god of Babylon, is forced to disgorge his prey (li. 44). 
Israel's duration in exile is represented by Hosea as 
lasting for ""three days" (Hosea vi. 2). The prayer 
of Jonah in the fish's belly (chap, iii., compare Israel 
in the maw of Nebuchadnezzar in Jer. li. 34) is made 
up of a number of sentences taken from Psalms com- 
posed during the Exile. The language even of vv. 5, 6 
(the only original verses in that poem) contains phrases 
elsewhere used in reference to Exilic times, or to the 
deliverance from Egypt as recorded in Exodus. See 
the ordinary marginal references in the English Bibles. 
The. "prayer" of Jonah contains no confession of sin, 
and no petition for deliverance. Such facts are highly 
significant. They are very serious difficulties in the 
way of the literal explanation; they fall in exactly 
with the allegorical. No part of that " prayer " can 
be regarded as descriptive of a man actually located 
in a fish's belly. 

The second portion of the Book of Jonah, when 
viewed as a prophetical allegory, is even more remark- 
able than the first. The closing portion of it, and the 
mode in which the narrative is suddenly broken off, 



212 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS. 

are remarkably analogous to the second part of our 
Lord's great parable (Luke xv. 25-32). Yiewed in 
this light the Book of Jonah is seen to contain several 
important predictions of Messianic times, inclusive of 
the prophecy of our Lord's resurrection referred to in 
the New Testament. Even if the incidents related in 
the Book of Jonah could be proved to be historical 
in the ordinary sense of that term, the importance of 
those incidents is mainly dependent upon their alle- 
gorical or prophetical character; as are, also, those 
facts of Abrahamic history allegorized by St. Paul in 
Gal. iv. 21-31. The Book of Jonah is mainly im- 
portant as a book of prophecy. 

2. The above is condensed from the essay on "The Book 
of Jonah considered from an allegorical point of view" in my 
Biblical Essays (T. and T. Clark, 1886). The first helpful 
suggestions on the point were derived from J. S. Bloch's 
Studien zur GeschicMe der Sammlung der alt-hebraische Lite- 
ratur. Leipzig, 1875, which reached a second edition in 1882. 
Paul Kleinert, a most orthodox theologian, adopts substantially 
the same view in Lange's Bibebverk, although it is not brought 
out with sufficient clearness ; and Professor Elliott, the 
American scholar, who has translated and enlarged Kleinert's 
commentary in the English edition, makes a gentle protest 
against the theory. T. K. Cheyne has in the Theological Review 
(1877) partly supported the allegorical view, although he holds 
partly to the myth theory. The allegorical view has been 
very differently presented by Herm. von der Hardt in his 
Aenigmata prisei orbis, 1723, and in other writings : by 
Gottfr. Less in his Termiselite Schriften, i. 1782 ; by A. W. 
Krahmer in his Hist. ~krit. Untersuchung in Sckriftforsclier, 
Part i., 1839 ; by K. C. Palmer in Scheerer's Arcliiv., 1801 ; 
and by Friedr. Bergman in his Jonah e'nte- alt. Test. Parabel, 
1885. The number of commentaries written on the book, 



THE BOOK OF MICAH. 213 

independently of those noted on the Minor Prophets in 
general (p. 199), is very large. Leusden's Jonas illvst. per 
paraph. Chald., Raschi, Tbn Ezra, etc, 1656 and 1692, is still 
useful. Fredrichsen, Krit. TJebers. d. versch. Ansichten, 2te 
Aufl., 1842. Prof. "W. Wright's Jonah in Chald., Syr., Aeth., 
and Arab., icith corresp. glossaries, 1857, is useful for students. 
The literature on the hook is given in the English edition of 
Lange's Bibehvcrh, and more largely in M. M. Kalisch's Bible 
Studies, Part ii., The Booh of Jonah, 1878, whose critical and 
philological remarks are important. Kalisch, however, has 
strangely not noticed Bloch's Studien, nor the remarks of 
Kleinert in his Introduction to the book. The strength of the 
objections to the historical view cannot be understood by 
those who only read such commentaries as those of Pusey in 
his Minor Prophets, Huxtable in the Speaker's Commentary, 
or P. A. Bedford's Studies in the Booh of Jonah, 1883. Sug- 
gestive from the same point of view, although ignoring all the 
critical difficulties, is Dr. H. Martin, The Prophet Jonah, his 
Character and Mission to Nineveh, 2nd edit., Edin., 1877 ; 
W. Bb'hme, Bie Composition des BuchesJona in the Zeitschrift 
fur die alt-test. Wissenschaft, 1887, attempts, not very success- 
fully, to prove that the book is a composition of various writers 
— Jahvist, Elohist — and editors. Archdeacon Perowne's little 
commentary in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 
contains many good remarks, but has not grasped " the other 
side" of the question. 



§ 6. MlCAH. 

1. Micah, nD»P s a shortened form of *»TO*P, Who 
is like Jehovah? Compare '$?^i Michael, who is 
like God? The LXX. transliterate it Mi^ca'as. It 
is exactly the same name as that borne by the prophet 
who lived in the days of Ahab, spoken of in 1 "Kings 
xxii. 8-28. The author of the book was of Moreshath- 



214 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS. 

Gath (chap. i. 14), which belonged to Judah, and pro- 
phesied, according to chap. i. 1, under Jotham, Ahaz, 
and Hezekiah. The book falls into three parts. I. 
Chap, i., ii. describe the judgments which were to fall 
on Israel and Judah on account of their sin. That 
prophecy cl ith a prediction of recovery from 

exile (chap. ii. 12. 13). II. Chap, iii.-v. descril^e 
vividly the sin of the people and their punishment 
in striking connection with a grand Messianic pro- 
Ill. Chap, vi.-vii. contain exhortations to 
repentance and warnings -s of penitence are 

admirably intermingled in those chapters with assu- 
rances of salvation. Some modern critics maintain 
that the portions chap. iv. 9-14 and chap. vii. 7-20 
are later insertions j but the reasons adduced do not 
- the conclusion. Ewald considers chap. vi. 
and vii. to have been composed by another prophet 
in the reign of Manasseh. Stade maintains that only 
chap, i.-iii. (exclusive of chap. ii. 12, 13) can have 
been written by Micah. Renss considers almost the 
whole book to be genuine. 

Much discussion has arisen whether Mkab iv. 1-4 
is the original of Isa. ii. 2-4. or nil :r whether 

both prophets have quoted from some earlier prediction. 
Eminent critics have argued on all the three side>. 
The prophecy of Micah iii. 12 is distinctly quo: 
Jer. xxvi. IS. The most remarkable prophecy of the 
book it that : the birth of the M Bethlehem 

(chap. v. 2, 3), which ill more importance 

when viewed in relation to the context in which it 
is found. Very important, too, are the prophets 
references to Gen. iii. in chap. vii. 17 : to the hi 



THE BOOK OF NAHUM. 215 

of the patriarchs in chap. vii. 20 ; to the exodus, and 
to the story of Balaam in chap. vi. 4, 6. 

2. The best commentaries, in addition to those mentioned 
p. 199, are those of Ed. Pococke, Commentary on Micah and 
Malachi, 1677, or in his Works, 1740. C. F. Schnurrer and 
J. G. Andler, Animadv. phil. crit. ad vatic. M. ex coll. vers. 
Groec. reliquarumq. in Polygl.Lond. edit., 1783. G. L. Bauer, 
Animadv. crit. in duo priora proph. M. capp., 1790. C. P. 
Caspari, Ueber Micha den Morasth. u. seine pro ph. Schrift., 
Christiania, 1852 ; T. Koorda, Comm. in vat. Micha, 1869. 
A. Thomas, Essai sur le Pro2?h. Michee, Geneva, 1853 ; L. 
Baulme, Les Prophcties de Mich., Toulouse, 1866. See also 
Hengstenberg, Cliristology, vid. p. 173. Keinke (Roman 
Catholic), Per Prophet Micha, 1874. T. K. Cheyne, Micah, 
with Notes and Introd., 1882, 2nd edit. B. Stade, in Zeitschrift 
f. d. alt-test. Wissenschaft, 1881, 1883. V. Ryssel, Unter- 
suchungen uber d. Textgestalt u. d. Echtheit des Buches Micha, 
Ein krit. commentar zu Micha is most important, 1887. 
W. Nowack, in Stade's Zeitschrift, 1884. See Appendix. 

f 

§ 7. Nahum. 

1. Nahum, D-iry, rich in comfort, Gr. Naou'/x, be- 
longed to Elkosh, a village not yet identified, though 
probably belonging to Galilee. There are many 
different opinions on the meaning of Elkosh. The 
identification with Alkush near Mosul is connected 
with a tradition which cannot be traced back earlier 
than the sixteenth century. The town in question 
is in all probability of much later origin than the 
time of Nahum. His short book, which is occupied 
wholly with "the burden of Nineveh," "the bloody 
city" (chap. iii. 1), probably goes back to B.C. 660. 
For the destruction of No-amon (Thebes in Egypt), 
which is spoken of as a recent event (chap. iii. 8 ff.), 



216 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS. 

was accomplished by Assurbanipal, king of Assyria, 
in B.C. 664 or 663. The descriptions given by ISahuni 
are exceedingly fine and vivid, and the book is 
deservedly classed among the finest productions of Old 
Testament literature. 

2. The special commentaries on the book are numerous, and 
the literature connected with the overthrow and fall of Nineveh 
of great extent. Among the commentaries may be mentioned : 
C. F. Staudlin, Hosea, Xahum unci Hdbahkuk neu iibersetzt 
und erldutert, 17S6. Vatic. Xah. observat. phil. illustr. Diss, 
praes. M. C. M. AgrelL resp. N. S. Colliander, Upsala, 1788. 
H. A. Grimm, Xah. neu iibersetzt m. erld. Anm., 1790. J. 
Bodin, Xah. lot. vers, et notis phil. Must., Upsala, 1806. O. 
Strauss. Xahumi de Xino Tat. expl. ex Assyr. vnonum. Must., 
1853. C. A. Blomquist, Upsala, 1853. F. Gihl, Upsala, 1860. 
Vance Smith, Prophecies relating .to Xineveh and the Assyrians, 
1857. M. Breiteneicher. Xi?i. u. Xahum, 1861. L. Keinke 
(Rom. Cath.). Kritik der alien Versionen des Xah., 1867, 
E. Mahler, Untersvchungen in Buche Xahum avf den Enter- 
gang Xin. bezogenen Finsterniss, mit 2 Karten. Wien, 1886, 
avs Sitzungsbericht d. h. Acad. d. Wlss. See also p. 199. 

§ 8. Habakkue. 

1. Habakkuk, MP3C!, LXX. 'Afipaxovp, was a 
member of the kingdom of Judah, is termed a prophet 
in chap. i. 1, and was possibly, as Delitzsch supposes, 
one of the Temple-singers, as his poem or prayer 
(chap, iii.) was intended for temple use (chap. iii. 19). 
According to the superscription of the apocryphal 
u Bel and the Dragon ; ' in the Chigian Codex of the 
LXX. he was "of the tribe of Levi," the prophet 
being identified from the similarity of name with the 
Habakkuk mentioned in the end of that piece, who 
in the text of Theodotion is termed " Habbacuc the 



THE BOOK OF EABAKKUK. 217 

prophet in Judrea" (see Fritzsche, Lib. Apoc. V. T. 
Greece). Other legends need not here be mentioned. 
His date is uncertain. Delitzsch supposes him to 
have lived in the reign of Josiah, because Zephaniah 
(i. 7) seems to quote Hab. ii. 20, and Jeremiah (iv. 
13 and v. 6) appears to quote Hab. i. 8. Most other 
critics consider the prophet to have prophesied in the 
early part of Jehoiakim's reign. He prophesied about 
the Chaldsean invasion. The book is semi-dramatic. 
Chap. i. contains Habakkuk's complaint (ver. 2-4), and 
Jehovah's reply (ver. 5-11) with the prophet's comment 
thereupon (ver. 12-17). In the second chapter the 
prophet sets himself on the watch-tower, and obtains 
a reply promising the ultimate destruction of the 
foe, whenever the special work which that enemy was 
raised up to perform should have been accomplished. 
The grand poem of chap. iii. describes a Divine theo- 
phany, in which the past glories connected with the 
redemption of Israel from Egyptian bondage are 
dwelt upon, in order to encourage the righteous to 
stay upon their God in the sore days of trouble and 
trial which were then at hand. 

2. The Rabbinical commentary on Habakkuk by Abarbanel 
has been translated into Latin by Sprecher, 1709, and that of 
R, Tanchum bas been edited by S. Munk, Comm. sur le livre 
de Hab., 1843. Of tbe later critical commentaries may be 
mentioned : Staudlin, Hosea, JVah., und Hab. neu ubers. u. 
erkl., 1786. Wanl, Hab. neu ubers. mit Einl., etc., 1790 ; B. P. 
Kofod, Chab. vatic, comm. crit. atque exeg., 1792. Wolff, Ber 
Brojph. Hab., 1822. Baumlein, Comm. de Hab. vatic., 1840 
Especially Franz Delitzsch, De Habb. Proph. vita atque estate, 
etc., 1842, and Ber Proph Habakuk ausgelegt, 1843. Gumpach, 
Ber Proph. Hab., 1860 ; and Reinke (Roman Catholic), Ber 



218 THE TWELVE MIXOB PROPHETS. 

Proph. Hab., 187U. Ant. J. Baumgartner, Le projfhttt 
Habakkuk, Introduction critique et exeyese, Leipzig, 13&5. 
R. Sinker, The Psalm of Uabakhuk, a revised translation, 
with critical and esegetical notes, 1890. See also the writers 
v^n Minor Prophet.?, p. 199. 

§ 9. Zephaniah. 

1. Zephaniah, n 'i?V (Jehovah hides, or protects), 
LXX. 2,o<}>ovia<;, was probably a great-grandson of 
Hezekiah the king (chap, l 1 ). although the omission 
of the phrase " the king : ' in that passage has caused 
some difficulty to critics. He lived in the reign of 
Josiah prior to the great reformation accomplished 
by that king (comp. chap. i. -i-6 and chap. iii. 1-5). 
He vividly depicts a great day of wrath coining 
on Judah and the kingdoms round about, as wel) 
as upon Assyria and Ethiopia. He promises, how- 
ever, Messianic, blessings to the remnant of Israel, 
which is to be purified by affliction and brought back 
from captivity. He moreover predicted that the same 
blessings would be bestowed also upon the nations of 
the earth. It has been supposed by some critics that 
the prophecies of Zephaniah refer to the Scythian 
inroads upon Judah, but that view cannot be sus- 
tained. The Babylonian invasion is evidently that 
predicted, although the reports of the Scythian 
barbarities probably gave a special tinge to the 
predictions. The Messianic age is vividly depicted, 
although the Messiah Himself is not distinctly alluded 
to. Jehovah is, however, represented as the king 
of Israel ;< in the midst of His people " (chap. 
iii. 15). in language which shows that the Messianic 



THE BOOK OF UAGGAL 219 

prophecies of Isaiah (ix. 5, xii. G) were well remem- 
bered and referred to. There are other remarkable 
references to Isaiah in the last portion of chap. iii. 
Compare ver. 9 with Isa. vi. 5, ver. 10 with Isa. xviii. 
1. Compare also ver. 10, 11 — correctly translated on 
the margin of the Revised Version — with Isa. lxvi. 20, 
which reference might be adduced as an argument 
for the unity of the Book of Isaiah. 

2. Martin Bucer wrote a commentary on Zephaniah in 152S' 
which is still of value. Besides the writers on the Minor 
Prophets mentioned p. 199, the most important in connection 
with Zephaniah are : Cramer, Scyth. Benkmaler in Palcestina, 
1777. D. von Coelln, Spicil. ohserv. exeg. crit. in Zeph., 1818. 
Herwig in Bengel's Archie, Band i. ; E. Ewald, TJbers. init 
Anrnerk., 1827. F. A. Strauss, Vaticinia Zeph. comm. ilhistr., 
1843. V. S. Johnson, Upsala, 1857; L. Beinke (Boman 
Catholic), Ber Proph. Zeph.. 1868. Friedr. Schwally, Bus 
Buclt Ssefanjd, eine hist.-kritiseke Untersuchung t in the 
Zcitschrift f. A. T. Wisscmchaft, 1^90. 

b. The Post- exilian Prophets. 
§ 10. Haggai. 
1. Haggai (^H, Festal, Gr. 'Ayyatos, probably born 
on some great festal day), was one of those who 
returned from captivity with the first band of 
Israelites, under the leadership of Zerubbabel. The 
prophecies contained in the book were all delivered 
within the space of some three months. Short as they 
were, they were the means of stirring up Zerubbabel 
and Joshua to go forward with the work of re- 
building the Temple, which, though begun in the 
second year of Cyrus, B.C. 535, had, owing to oppo- 
sition, been abandoned in despair (Ezra iv. v.). The 



220 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS. 

impetus given by his prophecies, and those of Zech- 
ariah, to that work is mentioned by Ezra (chap. v. 1, 
vi. 14). Ewald conjectures, from Haggai ii. 3, that 
Haggai was one of the old men who had seen the 
first temple in its glory; but the passage does not 
fully warrant such a conclusion. Haggai's prophecies 
contained in this book are four in number, and are dis- 
tinguished for their brevity. The passage in chap. ii. 
6-9 is Messianic, and is referred to in Heb. xii. 26-28. 
It is incorrect to regard the phrase in ver. 7, trans- 
lated in the Authorised Yersion "the desire of all 
nations," as a title of the Messiah. The correct trans- 
lation is "the desirable things of all nations " (Revised 
Version), which is abundantly proved from the fact 
that the verb in the clause (" shall come ") is in the 
plural. " The desirable things " spoken of were the 
silver and the gold required for the use of the temple. 
But "the latter glory" of that second temple, in 
which alone it outshone the former in glory, was 
that it was the place in which the manifestation of 
the Messiah actually occurred, and that epiphany is 
the event by which the prophecy of Haggai was 
finally accomplished. 

2. Many of the commentaries on Haggai deal also with the 
two other post-exilian prophets, Zechariah and Malachi, as, for 
instance, the Latin commentaries of F. Baldwin, 1610 ; Willius, 
1638 ; Varenius, 1662. Among the later commentaries on these 
three prophets are those of W. Pressel, 1860 ; T. Y. Moore, The 
Prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, New York, 1856 ; 
Aug. Kohler, Die nachexilische Propheten, Haggai, I860; 
Sacharja, 1861 ; Maleachi, 1865 ; Eeinke, Per Proph. Haggai, 
1868 ; J. P. Lange in his Bibelwerk, 1876. In the English 
translation of Lange's Bibelwerk, in place of J. P. Lange's 



THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH. 221 

own commentary on these books (wh\ch appeared subsequently 
to the American edition), the Book of Haggai is expounded 
by J. F. McCurdy, the Book of Zechariah by T. W. Chambers, 
and the Book of Malachi by J. Packard. 

On Haggai, among the commentaries in Latin are the Scholia 
of J. Mercer, which appeared in 1551 ; the commentary of 
Grynaeus in 1581 ; Beinbeck's Exercit. in proph. Hogg., 
1692 ; D. Pfeffinger, Notes, 1703 ; Woken, Annot. exeg., 1719 ; 
N. Hesslen, Vatic. Hagg., Lund. 1699. The passage in Hagg. 
ii. 6-9 is discussed in Hengstenberg's Christology ', Hofmann's 
Weissagung ii. EvfilUung, J. P. Smith's Scripture Testimony 
to the Messiah, and a number of smaller monographs. 

§ 11. Zechariah. 

Zechariah ("Vp?, Jehovah remembers, LXX. Za^a- 
ptas) is styled in chap. i. 1 the son of Berechiah, the 
son of Iddo. The latter was one of the priests who 
returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua (Neh. xii. 4, 16 ; 
Ezra v. 1, vi. 14). The Book of Zechariah is divided 
into two portions. I. The first consists of chap, i.-viii., 
the genuineness of which is undisputed. This portion 
contains (a) an exhortation to repentance (chap. i. 
1-6), followed by (b) seven apocalyptic visions, some- 
times counted as eight, for the sixth has two parts. 
These visions, like those of the Book of the Reve- 
lation (comp. Rev. i. 19), delineate the past and the 
present, as well as the future. 1. The vision of the 
Angelic Riders, which is accompanied by a partial expla- 
nation (chap. i. 7-17). 2. That of the Four Horns, and 
of the Four Smiths, raised up to put an end to the de- 
structive power of the horns (chap. i. 18-21). 3. That 
of the Man with the Measuring -line, which is followed by 
the Angel's address to the prophet (chap, ii.) 4. The 



•:•:•: the twelve mixor morn: 

High Priest Joshua before live Angel ; the accusation 
of Satan: the rebuke of the Adversary; the restora- 
tion of Joshua to favour, and the adjuration of him 
by the Ar.rel chap. iii. 5. The Vision of the Golden 
Candlestick, with its explanation (chap. iv.). 6. TJte 
Vision of the Flying Roll, with the curse written on 
both sides, and of the Woman in the Ephah symbolising 
Wickedness and her instruments, with her temporary 
rescue from destruction (chap. v.). 7. The Vision of 
Four Chariots. That vision is evidently based 
upon Daniels vision of the four empires, and is in- 
cidentally evidence of the genuineness of the Book of 
Daniel {chap, vi 1-8). The Seven Yisions are followed 

a remarkable description of the crowning of 
the High Priest, indicating symbolically the crowning 
—siah, the Branch, as Priest and TTfng (chap. vi. 
9-15). Next follow (d) chap, vii., viii., which narrate 
how a deputation came from Bethel to inquire about 
fasts (chap. vii. 1-7). an account which is succeeded by 
two comforting (hscourses delivered by the prophet. 

II. The second part of the book (chap, ix 
has been the subject of much critical centre 
Many critics maintain that the second portion is 
composed of prophecies belonging to different periods, 
and by different authors, which hare been appended 
to the Book of Zechariah. Chap. ix.-xL, with chap. 
:.':.:.. 7-9. are supposed by some to have been written 
prior to the Exile by a contemporary of Isaiah. 
Chap, xii.-xiv. (with the omission of chap. xiii. 
are supposed by these critics to have been written 

contemporary of Jeremiah. Other critics, 
however, maintain that the whole of the latter 



THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAIL 223 

portion of Zechariah is post-exilic, even if written 
by a different prophet. The arguments in favour of 
the genuineness and unity of the book overweigh in 
our opinion those adduced on the other side. The 
historical references in the early portion of the latter 
part of the book do not correspond with the events 
of pre-exilic days. The chapters in question depict 
rather the judgments which actually fell on various 
portions of Syria and Palestine during the Grecian 
period, and led to the absorption of the residue 
of the Philistines into the body politic of Israel. 
Those judgments helped to prepare the way for 
the Messiah, who is depicted by the prophet as 
coming in lowly guise. The Maccabean period is 
the subject-matter of a considerable portion of these 
prophecies. Chap. x. describes the war of the 
sons of Zion against Greece, although the old pro- 
phetic symbols of Assyria and Egypt are made use 
of at the close of that prophecy. Chap, xi., xii. refer 
also to the same period, the outlines of which epoch are 
sketched down to the coming of the Messiah and to His 
rejection by the people of Israel. The vivid description 
of the mourning in chap. xii. is most remarkable. 
All families are described as mourning; wives, 
husbands, each " apart " from one another in Jeru- 
salem and throughout the land. The frequent repe- 
tition of the idea of each individual mourning "apart" 
indicates that point to be the chief feature in the 
picture. The mourning is different from that described 
in Ezek. vii. 16-18, 27, and, though inconceivable as 
an actual literal fact, has been realised in that indi- 
vidual penitential mourning for Christ on the part 



224 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS. 

of all believers in Him which is still in process of 
fulfilment. Chap. xiii. strikingly depicts the reac- 
tion against false prophets in the post-exilic period, 
which ultimately led to the rejection of the true 
Prophet of Israel. The closing chapter of the book 
(chap, xiv.) contains passages which are highly 
apocalyptic, and were never designed to be under- 
stood literally. It depicts rather "the last things 
as seen in the light of the Old Testament." The 
Messianic passages in chap, ix., xi., xii. and xiii. are 
of the highest importance. 

2. The literature on the Book of Zechariah is very ex- 
tensive. Besides the works noted pp. 173, 199, Philip 
Melanchthon, Cotnm. in proph. Zach. y Opera, ii., Grynaeus 
(1581), Calvin (1610), J. H. Ursinus (1652), and others of 
the Reformers wrote learned commentaries on the book, as 
did Vitringa (1734), Venema (1789), etc. Blayney's Com- 
mentary, 1797, is almost antiquated. Of the more modern 
may be mentioned Koster, Meletemata crlt. et exeg. in Zach. 
partem poster., 1818. Forberg, on the same portion, also in 
Latin, 1824. Hengstenberg on the Integrity of Zechariah, 
1831, has been translated into English (T. and T. Clark). 
F. Burger, Etudes exegetiques et critiques, 1841. Bleek, Das 
Zeitalter von Sacharja, in the Stud. u. Xrit., 1852. M. Baum- 
garten, 1854. Monographs by Sandrock in defence of the 
unity, 1856 ; by von Ortenberg against it, 1859. W. Neumann, 
1860 ; Kliefoth, 1862 ; Kohler, p. 220. C. H. H. Wright, 
Bampton Lectures on Zechariah and his propJiccies, with 
crit. and gram, comm., 1879. Bredenkamp, Der Proph. 
Sach., 1879, was published simultaneously. W. H. Lowe, 
The Hebrew Student's Commentary on Zechariah, 1882. 
B. Stade, Deuterozacharja, eine hritische Studie, in the 
Zeitschrift fur die alt-test. Wissenschaft, 1881 and 1882. 
Of the Rabbinical writers, David Ximchi's Comm. on 
Zech., translated from the Hebrew, has been edited, with 



THE BOOK OF MALACUL 225 

notes, by Alex. McCaul, 1837 ; and the Yalkut on Zechariah, 
translated, with notes and appendix, by E. G. King, 1882. 
The Post-exilian Prophets, by Marcus Dods, 1879. Haggai, 
Zechariah, and Malachi, by Ven. T. T. Perowne, in Cambridge 
Bible for Schools, 1886-1889. W. Lindsay Alexander, Zechariah, 
his Visions and Warnings, 1885. T. K. Cheyne, Origin of Book 
of Zcchariah in Jewish Quarterly Review, Oct., 1888. The 
commentary of Bosanquet, and many other such like, are 
utterly worthless. (See Appendix.') 

§ 12. Malachi. 
1. Nothing whatever is known respecting the his- 
tory or person of Malachi. The name 1 ?Nf£ would 
naturally signify " my angel" as in chap. iii. 1. It 
is, however, quite possible to render it with Gesenius 
and Winer, by angelicus — i.e. one standing in some 
connection with an angel. Hence some of the ancients 
derived the fancy that these prophecies were delivered 
by angelic hands ; while others regarded the word as a 
name of office, my messenger. Jonathan ben Uzziel in 
theTargum accordingly supposes Ezra the scribe to have 
been referred to. The LXX. in the superscription 
regard the word as a proper name, MaAaxias ; but in 
the text (chap. i. 1) they render the word iv ^zipi 
dyyeAov avrov. The name ^N?*? was in all proba- 
bility a curtailed form, -irwg?© or n»3£?£. I* * s P r0_ 
bable that Malachi was a contemporary of Nehemiah, 
and prophesied between the period of that governor's 
first and second residence in Judaea. Compare the 
reference in chap. i. 8 with Neh. v. 14. The circum- 
stances noted in Neh. xiii. correspond with the in- 
dications given in the Book of Malachi. The prophet 
denounces the presentation of inferior victims on the 

15 



226 THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS. 

altar, the looseness in matrimonial relations, and 
the spirit of indifference on the part of the priests, 
all of which indicated a sad falling off in religious 
fervour. In a portion of the book the dialogue form 
is made use of. The announcement of the coming of 
the Messiah in judgment preceded by His forerunner 
(chap. iii. 1, iv. 1, 2) is one of the most remarkable 
prophecies of the book. Elijah, the prophet here 
spoken of, was declared by our Lord to be John the 
Baptist (Matt. xi. 14, xvii. 10-13; Mark ix. 11-13) 
although some have strangely maintained, in spite of 
those distinct declarations, that a future advent of 
Elijah the prophet is to be looked for. The Divine 
character of the Messiah is not obscurely hinted at in 
chap. iii. 1. The attempts of Romish theologians to 
twist chap, i, 11 and chap. iii. 4 into predictions of 
" the sacrifice of the mass " will deceive no one who 
is acquainted with the fact that Old Testament pro- 
phecies of the future are depicted in the light, and 
with the symbols, of the Old Testament. 

2. On the literature of the book consult pp. 173, 199. Dav. 
Chytraeus, Explie. Mai., 1568 ; J. J. Grynaeus, Hypamnemata 
in Mai., 1582 ; latest edition 1612. S. Bohlius, Mai. Proph. 
cum comm. Rabbinorum, 1637. J. H. Ursinus, Comli., 1652. 
J. Wessel, Malach. enucleatns, 1729. Ed. Pococke's Commentary 
on the Prophecy of Malachi, in his Works, 1740, is valuable. 
H. Venema. Comm. ad lib. Mai., 1763. C. F. Bahrdt, 1768. 
Reinke (Rom. Cath.), Der Proph. Malachi, 1856. A. Kohler, 
see p. 220. Marcus Dods, in T. and T. Clark's Handbooks 
for Bible Classes, and T. T. Perowne, in the Cambridge £ible t 
have given useful commentaries on Haggai, Zechariah, and 
Malachi. 



APPENDIX OF BIBLIOGRAPHY SINCE 
THE PUBLICATION OF THE FIRST 
EDITION OF THIS WORK. 

Chap. I. (1) Introductions, etc. — Among new Einleitungen 
or Introductions published since 1891 are those of Cornill, 
2nd edit., 1896 ; H. L. Strack, einschliesslich Apokryphen 
und Pseudepigraphen writ eingehender Angabe der Litteratur, 
4te ganz neu bearbeitete Auflage, 1895, contains valuable addi- 
tional matter to earlier editions ; that of Ed. Konig, 1893, one 
of the most valuable published ; S. B. Driver, Introduction to 
the Literature of the Old Test.,*5t\i edit., revised and enlarged, 
1897, indispensable for all real students. Dr. F. Buhl, 
Canon and Text of the 0. T., German, 1891 ; Engl, tr., 1892. 
Ch. D. Ginsburg's Introduction to the Massoretico- Critical 
Edition of the Hebrew Bible, 1897, belongs rather to the sub- 
ject of the Massorah (see chap. v.). 

(2) Here may be mentioned : Back, Gesch. der jiidisch. 
Volkes u. s. Litteratur vom Baby I. Exile bis auf der Gegen- 
icart, 2te Aufl. mit Anhang. [pp. xviii, 546, 104], 1894. 
Dr. G. Wildeboer, Origin of the Canon of the 0. T., German, 
1891 ; Engl, tr., 1895. H. E. Ryle, The Canon of the O. T., 
2nd edit., 1895. Prof. Sayce, Early Hist, of the Hebrews, 1898. 

Biehm's Handworterbuch has reached a new edit. Also Sir 
W. Smith's (in connection with Bev. J. M. Fuller) Bible Diet., 
vol. i., pt. i., and vol. i., pt. ii., in 1893. Also New Diet, of 
Bible, vol. i. (to Feasts), by Bev. J. Hastings, D.D. 

(3) General Literature. — Prof. Sayce, Higher Criticism 
and the Verdict of the Monuments, 1894, and Prof. Hommel, 
The Ancient Hebrew Tradition, 1897 have, though not in 



228 APPENDIX. 

a satisfactory manner, opened a new avenue of at least more 
conservative criticism, and have called forth articles too 
numerous here to he noticed. ^Reference must, however, 
he made to Driver's article on the Archceology of the Old 
Test, in the Contemporary of March 1894. Benzinger's Heb. 
Archceologie, 1894, is important, though not connected with 
the subject just mentioned. C. Niebuhr, Die Chronologie der 
Gesch. Israels, Aegyptens, Babyl. u. Assyr. von 2000—700 v. 
Chr. untersueht, 1896. A. Dillmann, Ilandb. d. A. T. Theol. 
Aus dem Nachlass der Verf. hrsg. v. Kittel, 1896. A. Kohler, 
Ueber Berichtigung der Kritilt d. A. T. [pp. 68J, 1895. F. W. 
Farrar, Bible, its Meaning and Supremacy, 1897. Prof. Kirk- 
patrick, Divine Library of Old Test., 1892. G. H. Dalman 
Trad. Rabbin, veterrima de libb. V. T. ordine et origine, 1891. 
H. Winckler's works : — Keilinschriftl. Textbuch z. A. T. 
[2 Nos., pp. 112], 1892; Alt-Test. Untersuchungen, 1892; 
Altorientalisclie Forschungen, Erste Eeihe, i.-vi., 1893-97 ; 
Gesch. Babyl. u. Assyriens, 1892. 

(4) Of importance are : W. Robertson Smith's Lectures on 
the Religion of the Semites, new edit., revised throughout, 
1894 ; his Old Test, in the Jewish Church, 2nd edit., revised 
and much enlarged, 1892. Prof. James Robertson, Early 
Religion of Israel, 1892. E. Sellin, Beitrdge zur Israelii, u. 
Jild. Religionsgesch., Halfte I. [pp. viii, 240], 1896; II. 
[viii, 314], 1897. A. Klostermann, Gesch. des Volkes Israels, 
1896. R. Kittel, Hist, of the Hebrews [2 vols.], Engl, tr., 
1896. The art. in the Z. A. T. W., 1891, by H. Bonk, on " Die 
Verwenclbarkeit der doppelf ormigen mit in* und V anlau- 
tenden Namen fur die hist. Quellenkritik," is of importance. 
M. Grunwald, Die Eigennamen des Alt-Test, in Hirer Bedeu- 
tung f. die Kenntniss des Heb. Volksglaubens [pp. 77], 
1895. G. Buchanan Gray, M.A., Studies on Hebrew Proper 
Names, 1896. G. Kerber, Die religionsgesch. Bedeutung der 
heb. Eigennamen, 1897. 

(5) The 3rd edit, of Ewald's Hist., mentioned p. 7, was 
transl. into English by J. Estlin Carpenter, who edited 
the vols, on the Old Test. The other vols, were edited by 
J. F. Smith. The 4th edit, has been transl. by Prof. R. 
Martineau, 1883 and later. 



APPENDIX. 229 

(6) The German transl. of Kuenen's work by Weber is a 
transl. of the 2nd edit. The French transl. by Dr. Pierson 
was made from the 1st. The two editions differ materially, 
for Kuenen in the 1st edit, did not accept Grafs views. See 
App. to chap. xi. 

(7) Among translations of the Old Test, should be noted 
E. Reuss, Bas Alte Test, iibers. eingeleitet u. erlaiitert, hrsg. 
aus dem Nachlasse der Verf. v. Erichson u. Horst [7 vols.], 
1892-95. Bie Heilige Schrift des Alt-Test., in Verbindung 
mit Proff. Baethgen, Guthe, Kamphausen, Kittel, Marti, 
Rothstein, Ruetschi, Ryssel, Siegfried und Socin, iibersetzt 
und hrsg. von Prof. Kautzsch, with Beilagen of various kinds 
and an accurate map of Palestine, completed 1894, most im- 
portant for critical students. Three Nos. of Engl, trans, in the 
Polychrome Bible (Judges, Psalms, and Isaiah), see p. 248. 

Chap. II. Printed editions of the Hebrew Text. — S. Baer, the 
distinguished Massoretic scholar, is no more. The Books of 
Joshua and Judges of his edition were published in 1891 ; that 
of Samuel (1 and 2 Sam.) in 1892 ; of Kings (1 and 2 Kings) 
in 1895. Possibly some other scholars will complete this 
edition of the Hebrew Bible. The edition of the Massoretic 
Hebrew Bible by Dr. C. D. Ginsburg, in 2 vols., published by 
the Trinitarian Bible Society, is now facile princeps. 

Chap. III. Hebrew Text and Heb. MSS.—(1) The dates of 
the Cairo MSS. alluded to on p. 21 have been verified by 
Prof. Merx. But alas ! although the dates in the epigraphs 
are clear, the epigraphs themselves are unreliable as giving 
the real age of the MSS. See chap. ii. of Bocurnents de 
Paleographie Hebra'ique et Arabe publies avec sept planches 
photo-lithographiques par Adalbert Merx, Leyde, 1894. 

(2) Prof. Abbott's articles mentioned on p. 21 have been 
republished in Essays chiefly on the Original Texts of the Old 
and New Tests., 1891. C. D. Ginsburg's Introduction to the 
Massoretico- Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, 1897, is 
of great importance ; as also the same scholar's Series of 
Fifteen Facsimiles from Manuscript Pages of the Hebrew 
Bible, 1897. Also articles by Dr. A. Biichler on Ths Reading 



230 APPENDIX. 

of the Law and Prophets in a Triennial Cycle in Jewish 
Quarterly, April and October 1893. See also App. on chap. v. 
The texts already published in Haupt's Sacred Books of the 
Old Test, will be found given as far as published under the 
several books. 



Chap. IV. Hebrew Punctuation, etc. — (1) In addition to 
what is mentioned on p. 25, it should be noted that a third 
system of symbols for Hebrew vowels and accents has been dis- 
covered by iNeubauer in fragments of Egyptian texts found in 
Egypt. See Literary Gleanings, in Jewish Quarterly, January 
1 895, and Dr. M. Friedlander, in Jewish Quarterly, April 1895, 
and in Proc. of Soc. of Bibl. Archceol., March 1896. 

(2) In lexicography, as given on p. 29, considerable advance 
has been made. Siegfried and Stade's Heb. Wbrterbuch z. A. T. 
appeared in 1893 ; Buhl's edit, of Gesenius' Heb. Handw. in 
1895 ; and more than half of Gesenius' Heb. and English Lex., 
by Professors F. Brown and Briggs of Union Theol. Sem., 
New York, and S. It. Driver of Oxford, 1892-97. The latter 
is greatly in advance of previous Heb. lexicons. Dr. S. 
Mandelkern's great Heb.-Chald. Bibel Concordant was com- 
pleted in 1896. It consists of pp. xvi, 1532, and has a 
concordance of proper names, including even mrv, iT, and 
their compounds. 

(3) The advance in grammar has been also great. Prof. 
Kautzsch issued in 1896 Gesen. Heb. Gramm. v'dllig umgear- 
beitet (the 26th Aufl.) — a marvellous production. An Engl, 
transl. will be soon issued from the Clarendon Press, Oxford. 
Ed. Konig's Ilist.-hrit.Lehrgeb. has been completed by two addi- 
tional large vols., the first (pp. 602) issued in 1895, the second 
half (Syntax) in 1897 (pp. 721). This is a gigantic and most 
important work. For Hebrew students in these countries 
A. B. Davidson's Introd. Heb. Grammar, 13th edit., 1896, with 
Hebrew Syntax, 2nd edit., 1896, is of great utility. Of Strack's 
small Heb. Grammar, a 5th edit., with exercises, appeared 1893 ; 
and in the United States a Practical Introduct. Grammar 
by E. C. Bissell ; while Dr. H. Zimmern has published a 
short Vergleichende Gramm. der Semit. Sprachcn, Elemente 



APPENDIX. 231 

der Laut- und Formenlehre, 1898, which will be most helpful 
with W. Wright's Lectures noted on p. 29. J. D. Wijnkoop's 
Manual of Hebrew Syntax, transl. by Dr. C. Van den Biesen, 
appeared in 1897. 

(4) It is impossible in our space to notice all the contribu- 
tions to various departments of grammatical science, but we 
must mention J. Barth's vol. of over pp. 500 on Die Nominal- 
bildungen in den Sem. Sprachen, 2te Aufl., 1894 ; Gerber, Die 
hebr. Verba denom., 1896 ; W. Diehl, Das Pron. pers. suff. 2 u. 
32Jer.pl. [pp. 84], 1895; Ed. Konig's article on Der Sprach- 
beweis in der Litterarkritik in the Stud. u. Kritilten, 3, 1893, 
partly reproduced in article in Expositor, January 1897, on 
Tlie Linguistic Hist, of O. T, against Maurice Vernes' dating of 
the documents ; I. Cassanowicz's dissertation on Paronomasia 
in the Old Test., Boston, Mass., 1894, also by Prof. C. W. 
Skarstedt of Lund, Sweden, Quantum frequens Agnomina- 
tionum, quce dicuntur, usus ap. Hebrceos in Literis acris 
inter pretandis valeat Disquisitio 1895 ; with J. Kennedy, B.D., 
Studies in Hebrew Synonyms, all of considerable interest ; 
and an Akademisk Afhandlung Om Kasus'dndelserna i 
Hebraiskan, published at Upsala in 1882 by K. U. Nylander. 
now Domprost in Strangnas ; K. Albrecht, " Das Geschlecht 
der heb. Hauptworter," Z. A. T. IF., 1895, 1896. 

(5) On Hebrew accents the following have appeared : 
Arthur Davis, Heb. Accents, 1892 ; A. Biichler, Untersuehung 
z. Entstehung u. Entwickelung der heb. Ace, 1892 ; J. M. 
Japhet, Die Accente der. hi. Schrift [pp. xi, 184], 1896. 

Chap. V. The Massorah. — (1) The prohibition (mentioned 
p. 33) to commit to writing anything except the Holy Scrip- 
tures will be found discussed more in detail in Strack's 
Einleitung in den Thalmud, Leipzig, 1887, pp. 38 ff. ; and in 
his 2fce, neuarb. Aufl., 1894, p. 49. Such prohibitions, although 
generally attended to, may, as is obvious, not have been 
always observed. 

(2) Page 34. Dr.LudwigBlau'sil/a.wmwc/^ Untersuehung en, 
Strassburg, 1891, reviewed by Dr. Ad. Neubauer in the Jewish 
Quarterly Review, April 1891, with P. de Lagarde's Das 



APPENDIX. 

Sliest* GUed d. mat*. Traditionskette, in the Gottimgen. Nmek* 
rieht^ 1890, p. 95 2., are important new contributions to the 
Massorah literature, as also Blau's Massorttie Studies in 
Jewish Quarterly -, January and October 1896 and April 1897. 
See other works in Appc, chaps ii. and iiL 

(3) Page 35. The word *p was bj the old scholars always 
pointed Hp (K'ri), and regarded as a participle passive. But 
Luzzatto has pointed out that that vocalisation, although the 
most general, is incorrect, because the word is really a 
preterite, and therefore should be pointed *$> (K re). See 
Luzzatto, Gramm. der bibL-chald. Spraehe, p.* 32 note, and 
Kantzsch, Gramm. der bibl.-Aram., p. 81 note. 

(4) Page 36. The errata should be corrected (in lines 9and 
10 from top of page) into DwS and fl)h\ The reference 
:: ; '--:::^:::.: :^ ■• >» ::_v: -ii : ... C- " : .z.s:^hi :: *;. 

Chap. VL Zfcvynsu.— {1) & Kautzsch, MttheUmng uber 
eine aUe HS. des Targ. Onk. (Cod. Socini, 84), 4to, pp. 21, 
1893. Dr. J. Bassfreund, in Da* FragmentenrTargum zmr 
Pent, sein Ursprung u. Character [pp. 100], 1896, proves 

:' .-■:- r'. .:. :1s.: :ie ?5f-f.:-,":^i:lir. s.r.i r^ — filT- I;.:i-:rr_« 
are based on Onkelos. J. F. Stenning promises a critica l 
edition of the Targ. on Isaiah (Cambridge Univ. Press), with 
an Introduction on Targums in general. M. Friedmann, OnieUs 
«. Akglos [pp. vi, 138], 1896. H. Bamstein, Targum of OnJteUs 
to Genesis, a critical inquiry, 1896. Bev. 1L Adler, Targ. to 
If ahum transL into English with tot. leet^ in Jewish 
Quarterly, 1895. M. Lewin, AramMsehe Sprichnwrter v. 
VoZhsspruche [pp. 12, 90], 1895— ein Beitrag z. Xenntnim 
~: : .i-.- z -~-".:: -■_:.:- ::tI I:i".t^: c .= :— i.^ r ~t: ;.->::::. ?:.:iii:- 
logie. A. Iiebermann, ifcw .Prion. *. <&» Advert. des babg- 

(2) in grammar and lexicography also much new and 
important has appeared. Foremost is the great work 
of Gustaf Balman, Grammatik des Jediseh-Palastiniseken 
Aramedseh, 1894, followed by his Aramaiseh Dialehtprob u 
Lesestwcke c. Grammatik, zvmeist naeh JSandsehriften des 
Brit Jfw, 1896. H. L. Stracks compact Abriss des 



APPENDIX. 233 

Bill. Aram., 1896, and in a 2te edit, (texts corrected 
from MSS.), 1897. Barnstein in a review in Jeivish Quar- 
terly, 1897, gives some additional matter as to MSS. 
P. Schwally, Idiotieum des christl., Palast. Aram. [pp. xii 
+ 134], 1894. M. Jastrow has begun a Diet, of the Targumim, 
the Babli and Jerushalmi and the Midrash Literature, Parts 
1 — 7 1895. An excellent work also is K. Marti's Kurzgef. 
Grammatik der Bill. Aram. Sprache, Litteratur, etc., 1896. 
G. Dalman has just published (1898) the first part of an 
Aramaiseh-Neuhel. Worterlueh zu Targum, Talmud u. Mid- 
rasch mit vokalisation der Targ. Worter nach Siidarabischen 
HSS. und mit Lexikon der Abbreviaturen von G. H. Handler. 
This latter contains 7,000 abbreviations with 14,000 solutions. 

(3) J. H. Petevmann's Pent. Sam. ad fidem Mil. Manuse. 
ap. Nallus. repert. was completed in 1891 by the issue of the 
part with B enter onomiuui ex recens. C. Vollers. A. Cowley's 
art. on the Samaritan Doctrine of Messiah in Expositor, March 
1895, is of interest. 



Chap. VII. Syriac Versions. — An edition of the Pscbitta, 
edd. Archbp. David and Khayyath, in 3 vols., has been issued 
at Mosul (Mansili), 1887-92. In the Anecdota Oxoniensia, 
Sem. Series, vol. i., pt. v., in 1893, appeared Five Fragments 
of the Palest. Vers, recently acquired by the Bodleian Lib., ed. 
with introd. and annot. by G. H. G william, B.D. ; and in vol. i., 
pt. ix., Billical and Patristic Relics of the Palest. Sgriac 
Literature from MSS. in the Bodleian and in the Lib. of St. 
Cath. on Mount Sinai, edited by G. H. Gwilliam, F. Crawford 
Burkitt, M.A., and J. F. Stenning, M.A., 1896. W. E. Barnes has 
brought out in the Camb. Univ. Press Appar. Crit. to Chronicles 
in the Peschitta [pp. xxxiv, 62], 1897 (see later under 
Kings'). Mrs. Agnes Lewis and Mrs. M. Gibson, Palest. Syriac 
Lectionary, Headings from Pent., Prophets, Acts, and Epistles, 
Camb. Univ. Press [pp. cxli, 139], 1897. In 1895 appeared 
Lexicon Syriacum, auct. C. Brockelmann, Praofatus est. Th. 
Noldeke — a very useful hand-lexicon. Two more parts of 
R. Payne Smith's Thesaurus Sgriacus appeared in 1893 and 
1897, completing the lexicon to the end of the letter L" ; 



234: APPENDIX. 

and the first part of A Compendious Syriac Dictionary founded 
upon the Thesaurus, by J. Payne Smith (Mrs. Margoliouth), 
was published by the Clarendon Press, 1896. 

Chap. VIII. Greek Versions. — (1) The Septuagint. Upon 
the origin and date of the LXX. an article by H. Graetz 
appeared in Jewish Quarterly for October 1890 in favour of its 
composition in post-Maccabean times, replied to by Prof. 
Swete in Expository Times of June 1891 ; also by Prof. A. F. 
Kirkpatrick in Expositor, April 1896. An English translation 
of Schiirer's great work on the history of the Jewish people 
in the time of Jesus Christ, referred to on p. 51, has been 
published by T. and T. Clark. An Introduction to the Greek 
Old Test, is announced as in preparation by Prof. Swete of 
Cambridge. 

At p. 57 attention ought to have been drawn, among 
works on separate books of the LXX. translation, to Hatch's 
important lecture ' ; On Origen's Revision of the LXX. Text 
of Job," in his Essays in Biblical Greek, Oxford, 1889. 
B. Jacob's article Das Buck Esther bei dem LXX., in Stade's 
Zeitschrift (Z. A. 1. IF.) for 1890, is referred to on p. 146 
under lit. of Esther. 

Swete's Old Test, in Greek according to the LXX., vol. iii., 
cont. Hosea to 4 Mace, appeared in 1894. The great Con- 
cordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of 
the O. T. (including the Apocryphal Books), by E. Hatch 
and Henry A. Eedpath, assisted by other scholars, was 
commenced in 1892, and completed in 1897. There was 
published atLeyden, 1896, by G. X. de Eieu, Codices Gr&ciet 
Latini photographice depicti, torn, i., Vet. Test. Grace, Codices 
Sarraviani-Colbertini qui supersunt in Bibliothecis Leidensi, 
Parisiensi. Petropolitana phototyp. editi. 

Important are P. de Lagarde, Septuaginta Studien, 1892 ; 
the articles on the Philonean Text of the LXX., by F. C. 
Coneybeare, Jewish Quarterly for 1893, 1894, 1895, and Ex- 
positor for 1891, vol. iv. Prof. H. E. Ryle has written Philo 
and Holy Scripture, Quotations from Books of O. T., 1895. 
.S. Silberstein on the LXX. text of 3 Kins-> in Z. A. T. IF., 



APPENDIX. 235 

1893 and 1894. See also under heading Daniel, and in 
chap. ix. 

M. Ceriani (see Prof. Armitage Eobinson's note in 
Guardian, May 6th, 1896) has announced the discovery in 
the Ambrosian Library, Milan, of a codex containing some 
palimpsest leaves containing portions of the Psalter copied 
from Origen's Hexapla. About eleven of the Psalms are thus 
preserved, and are followed by a repetition of the LXX. text. 
The Abb6 Mercati, who made this discovery, is preparing an 
edition of the codex with other important matter. Noticed 
by Dr. E. Klostermann in Z. A. T. W., 1896. 

(2) Equally interesting is the publication at the Cambridge 
Univ. Press, 1897, of Fragments of the Books of Kings accord- 
ing to the Translation of Aquila from an MS. formerly in 
the Geniza at Cairo, now in the possession of C. Taylor, D.D.. 
Master of St. John's College, and S. Schechter, M.A., Univ. 
Reader in Talmudic Literature. Edited for the Syndics of 
the University Press by F. Crawford Burkitt, M.A., with a 
Preface by C. Taylor, D.D. Contains facsimiles of three 
leaves (palimpsest) of a vellum MS. in 5th or 6th cent, 
uncials, containing 1 Kings xx. (3 Peg. xxi.) 8-17 ; 2 Kings 
xxiii. (3 Reg. xxiii.) 11-27. The upper writing is that of a 
Hebrew liturgical work. See art. in Jewish Quarterly, 
January 1898. Dr. E. Klostermann, Ein neues griechischet> 
Unzialpsalterium, in Z. A. T. W., Heft ii., 1897. 

Chap. IX. Latin Versions. — Under this we would note the 
important work in the Cambridge Texts and Studies of F. C 
Burkitt, M.A., on The Old Latin and the Itala, 1896, contain- 
ing matter of interest on the LXX. text of Daniel, Job, etc. 
The articles of F. C. Coneybeare on Fragments of a Pre- 
Hieronymic Latin Version, in the Expositor, 1891, vol. iv., 
and of Prof. Swete on Jerome on the Psalms, in Expositor for 
June 1896, are of interest. So is W. A. Copinger's Incunabula 
Biblica, or the First Half -Century of the Latin Bible, a 
bibliographical account of editions between 1450 and 1500, 
and a list of editions of the 16th cent., fol, with 54 plates, 
1892, Lond., Quaritch. 



236 APPENDIX. 

Chap. X. Pentateuch in general. — See app. to chap. i. 
Prof. W. H. Green has written on Higlier Criticism of the 
Pent., 1895. A. Kuenen, Gesamm. AbJiandlungen z. bibl. 
Wissenschaft, tr. by K. Budde, 1894. G. Schumann, JDie Well- 
hausensche Pent.-theorie in ihren Grundzugen dargestellt u. 
auf ihre Haltbarkeit gepriift., 1892. Israelitische u. Judisch. 
Gesch. Beurtheilumg der Schrift von Wellhausen, 1894, von 
Dr. theol. A. Zahn, 1895. Ed. Konig, Alt-Test. Kritik u. 
Christenglaube (Neue Jahrb. f. deutsch. TJieol., etc.), 1893. 
Hist, and Method of Pent. Crit., in Expository August 1896. 
Lex Mosaica, or Law of Moses and the HigJier Crit., essays by 
various clergymen, ed. by Dr. R. Valpy French, 1894. Prof. 
C. M. Mead, Christ and Criticism [pp. v, 196], 1893. J. 
Halevy, Recherches bibliques [pp. 465], Paris, 1896 (Gen. i.-xxv., 
with transl. of text and comm.). Halevy does not recognise 
a plurality of sources in Genesis. C. G. Montefiore, Recent 
Crit. on Moses, in Jewish Quarterly, 1891. Rev. H. Hayman 
lias written articles in Bibl. Sacra on the conserv. side which 
we have not seen. W. L. Baxter, Sanctuary and Sacrifice : 
a Reply to Wellhausen, 1896, is of importance, but often 
misconceives Wellhausen's standpoint. G. B. Gray, Proper 
Names in Priestly Code, in Expositor, September 1897. F. E. 
Spencer, Bid Moses write the Pentateuch ? 1893. W. Yolck, 
Heilige Schrift n. Kritik, 1897. Fr. Diisterdieck, Inspir. u. 
Kritik des HI. Schrift in besond. des A. T. [pp. 32], 1895. 
C. H. Cornill, Beitrdge z. Pent. Kritik, in Stade's ZeiUehrift 
(Z. A. T. W.), 1891. K. Budde has also several long articles 
on Pent, subjects in that vol. See App. i. 3, 4. 

Chap. XI. Pentateuch Criticism. — Many new contributions 
on the critical questions connected with the Pentateuch have 
appeared, such as R. B. Girdlestone's Foundations of the Bible : 
Studies in Old Test. Criticism, London, 1890; C. G. Montefiore, 
Recent Criticism upon Moses and the Pent. Narratives of the 
Becalogue, in the Jewish Quarterly Review for January 1891 ; 
also, in same, Prof. Gratz on The Central Sanctuary of 
Beuteronomy, and A. Kohut's Parsic and Jewish Literature 
of the First Man. C. H. Cornill has contributed Beitrdge zur 



APPENDIX. 237 

Pentateuclikritik to Stade's Zeitschrift for 1891. Important 
is H. Brugsch, Die biblischen sieben Jahre der Hungersnotk 
nach dem Wortlaut einer altdgypt. Felsen-Lnschrift, Leipzig, 
1891, mit 32 autogr. Taf. u. 5 Holzschn. E. Rupprecht has 
written much and smartly against the critics, but the lack in 
his works of critical knowledge and of moderation has marred 
their importance : Die Anschauung der krit. Schule Well- 
hausens vom Pent. [pp. 77], 1893 ; Das Rdtsel des Funfbuches 
Mose u. seine falsche Losung [pp. 160], 1895, against Strack ; 
and in the same year, against Kohler, Konig, and Meinhold, 
all more or less conservative critics, a vol. of pp. viii, 278, Das 
Bdtsels Losung oder Beitrdge zur riclit. Losung, etc., 1 Half te, 
pp. xxiii, 408 ; 2 Halfte, pp. iv, 458, 1896 ; 2te Abth. Erweis der 
Echtheit u. Glaubwiirdigkeit des Pent., 1897. A. Westphal, 
Les Sources du Pentateuque, torn. i. and ii., 1892. J. Well- 
hausen, Sketch of Hist, of Israel and Judah, Engl, tr., 1892 ; 
Israelitische u. Jiidisch Gesch., 1894 ; alsq 4th edit, of Pro- 
legomena 1895. M. Vernes, Essais Bibliques, 1891 — extreme, 
replied to by Konig. A. Klostermann, Der Pent. Beitrdge zu 
seinem Verstandniss in seiner Entsteliungsgeschichte [pp. viii, 
447], 1893, originally in articles. Sir J. W. Dawson, LL.D., 
Eden Lost and Won, 1895. P. J. Hoedemaker, Der Mosdisclie 
TIr sprung der Gesetze in die Biicher Exod. Lev. Numb, und 
Deut.; Deutsch von A. F. Schulte-Bienest [pp. xv, 368], 1897. 
C. Briggs, Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, new edit., 1897. 
H. L. Strack, Pent. Gen. Exod. Lev. und Numb. (Strack and 
Zockler's Comm.), 1892. A. Kohler, Lehrb. d. Bibl. Gesch., 
II. Halfte, 2 Theil, appeared in 1893 ; the author died 
February 17th, 1897. Articles in Stade's Z. A. T. W. in 1891 
and 1892 by K. Budde, Prof. Bruston of Montauban, etc., and 
by Stade in 1894, 1895. 

On p. 95 it should be noted that Kuenen placed Graf's 
theory on a firmer footing. For Graf had maintained that 
" the Priestly Code " consisted of two parts : the narrative 
portion by " the older Elohist," which was extremely 
ancient ; and, secondly, the legislative portion, which he 
regarded as post-exilian. Kuenen maintained that both were 
really one work, and were the latest portions of the Pent. 



APPENDIX. 

Wellbausen's views Lave been largely influenced by those of 
Kuenen. 

On p. 98 it should also be observed that the ridge pole of 
the tabernacle is nowhere mentioned, nor the plan adopted 
to prevent the roof from drooping in the centre. The old 
pictures which represented the roof of the tabernacle as 
having been flat were quite erroneous. See Fergusson's article 
on Tabernacle and Temple in Smith's BibL Diet. 

Chap. XIL Book* of Pent. § 1. Genesis.— G. J. Spurrell 
pubL 2nd edit., rev. and corrected, of his Sates on the Text of 
Book of Genesis in 1896. This is the best book for students. 
The author died in 1897. In Haupt's Sacred Books of Old 
Test, the Rev. C. J. Ball has edited the Book of Genesis, 
Critical Edition of the Heb. Text, printed in colours, etc., with 
notes, 1896. G. A. Wade, Prof, at Lampeter, has edit Book of 
Genesis, 1896. A.'DilImann published the 8th edit, of his 
Genesis in 1892. It has now been translated into English, 
and published in 2 vols, by I. i: T. Clark. Prof. B. W. Bacon, 
Genesis of Genesis, Hartford, U.S., 189i p p, Comp. of 

the Book of Genesis, 1S92 ; H. E. Erie, Early Xarratives of 
Genesis, brief introd. to study of Gen. L-xL [pp. x, 138] ,1892 
W. H. Green, Unity of Book of Genesis, 1896 ; A. Trissi, Das 
bibl. Seckstage-werke vow. Standpunkte der Kath. Exegese *. 
torn Stand]), der NaturKissensckaftcn, 2 Aufl., 1894 ; Sundftut 
oder Gletscher? Eine Frage. 1894. Among the additions 
to the literature of Genesis, besides the "Zweite vielfach 
verbesserte Auflage" of Kautzsch and Socin's Genesis mit 
ausserer Uhttrsekeidung der QueUensckriften, 1891, may 
be mentioned : O. Xaumann, Bos erste Buck der Bibel, 
mit seiner inner en Einheit tr. Ecktkeit dargesteUt. Gutersloh, 
1890; Th. Xoldeke's short article, Der Paradie*fluss Gikon 
in Arabien ? in the Ze itschrift der Dentsch. Morgenl. 
GeseUsehaft, Heft TV", for 1890; H. G. Tomkins, Abraham 
and his Age, 1897. 

§ 2. Exodus.— B. Baentsch, Das Bundcsbuc ."..£" n :2-xsiiL 
33, 1892 .(see under Lev.). Conrad Schick, Die StifUhutte, 
der Tempel in Jerusalem mnd der Tempelplatz dr Jetsti 



APPENDIX. 239 

1896, mit 46 Abbild. u. 11 lithog. Tafeln, pp. viii, 361. Dr. 
F. Seyring, on the names of the Bundeslade, art. in Stade's 
Zeitschrift (Z. A. T. W.), 1891 ; also L. Couard on the rcligibs- 
nation. Bedeutung der Lade, in the vol. for 1892. 

§ 3. Leviticus.— 8. R. Driver and H. A. White, The Booh 
of Leviticus, Hebrew Text, printed in colours, with notes, 
1894, in Haupt's S. B. of 0. T. B. Baentsch, Las Ileiligheits 
Gesetz, Lev. xvii.-xxvi. Rev. R. Collins, Leviticus, in Pulp. 
Comvi. Dillmann, Ex. u. Lev., 3rd edit, by Ryssel, 1897. 

§. 4. Numbers. — Rev. Thos. Whitelaw, in Pulp. Comm. 
Rev. R, A. Watson, in Expos. Bible, 1894. 

§ 5. Deuteronomy.— S. R. Driver, Critical and Exegetical 
Comm. on Deuterotiomy, 1895 (Intemat. Crit. Comm.). Deut. 
u. Joshua, by Prof. Oettli (Strack and Zockler's Comm.). F. 
Montet, Le Deuteronome et la question de VHexateuque [pp. 
vi, 612], Paris, 1892. W. Staerk, Das Deut., sein Inhalt u. 
seine liter. -Form [pp. vii, 119]. M. Haase, Das Deut. Das 
Prophetische Staatsgesetz des Theohratischen Konigthums, etc. 
[pp. xii, 252], 1897. (See App. to chap, xi.) C. Steuernagel, 
Der Rahmen des Deut., 1894. 

Chap. XIII. Hist. Boohs. § 1. Joshua.— Prof. W. H. Ben- 
nett, M.A., TJie Booh of Joshua, Critical Edit, of the Hebrew 
Text, printed in colours, with notes, 1895, in Haupt's Sacred 
Boohs. Dr. Blaikie, Joshua, in Expositor's Bible, 1893. 
J. S. Black, in Camb. Bible, 1891. Em. Albers, Die Quellen- 
berichte in Josh. i. — xii. Beitrag zur Quellenhritih des 
Hexateuchs, 1891. Want of space forbids our mentioning the 
numerous contributions to Palestine geography more or less 
bearing on this book of the Bible. 

§ 2. Judges. — Prof. G. F. Moore, D.D., Andover, Crit. and 
Exeg. Comm., 1895 (Internat. Comm.). Lord A. Hervey (late 
Bp. of Bath and Wells), in Pulpit Comm., 1896. K. Budde, Die 
Bichter u. Samuel, ihre Quellen u. ihre Aufbau, 1891 ; Buch 
der R. erhldrt, 1897. J. S. Black, The Booh of Judges, 1892 
(Camb. Bible). G. A. Cooke, Hist, and Song of Deborah, 1893. 

§ 3. Ruth.— Rev. P. W. H. Kettle well, The Booh of Ruth 



240 APPENDIX. 

and the First Book of Samuel, 1897. S. Oettli, in Strack 
and Zochler's Comm., 1889. 

§ 4. T/te Books of Samuel. — K. Budde, The Books of Samuel, 
Crit. Edit, of Hebrew Text, in colours, with notes, 1894, in Haupt's 
Sacred Books (see also under Judges). K. Payne Smith, 
in Pulpit Comm., 1896. T. K. Cheyne, Aids to Devout Study 
of Criticism, 1892, pp. 1-126, on David's hist. Kittel, Gesch., 
ii., and Kohler, Bill. Gesch., ii., discuss points of this book. 

§ 5. The Kings. — B. Stade, Der Text des Berichtes iiber 
Salomons Bauten, in Zeitschrift fiir A. T. W., 1883. Stade's 
Gesch. Isr., i. F. W. Farrar, in Expositor's Bible, 1893, 1894. 
C. Schick on Temple (see under Exodus). K. Budde, Nomadic 
Ideal in the O. T, in New World, December 1895. J. Berlinger, 
Die Peschitta zwm 1 (3), Buch der Kbnige u. ihr Verhdltniss 
zu M. T., LXX., u. Targ. [pp. 50], 1897. 

§ 6. The Chronicles. — K. Kittel, Chronicles, Crit. Edit, of 
Heb. Text, in colours, with notes, 1895, in Haupt's Sacred Books. 
Articles on the Speeclies in the Chronicles, by S. B. Driver, in 
Expositor, April and October 1895 ; and by Dr. Valpy French, 
August 1895. S. Oettli, in Strack and Zockler's Comm., 1889. 

§ 7. Ezra and Nehemiah. — H. E. Byle, in Camb. Bible, 
1893. W. F. Adeney, Ezra, Neh., and Esther, in Expositor's 
Bible, 1893. Lord A. Hervey (late Bp. of Bath and Wells), 
Chronology of Ezra iv. 6-23, in Expositor, June and July, 1893. 
Kuenen, in Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 1894. P. H. Hunter, 
After the Exile : a Hundred Years of Jewish Hist, and Lit., 
1890. Dr. Charles C. Torrey, of Andover, U.S.A., The Comp. 
and Hist. Value of Ezra- Nehemiah, Giessen, 1896. S. Oettli, 
in Strack and Zockler's Comm., 1889. Sayce's Introd. to Ezra, 
Neh., and Esther reached a 3rd edit, in 1893. 

§ 8. Esther. — T. K. Cheyne, article in Encycl. Britannica. 
Scholz, Comm. [pp. xxxviii, 182, and Anhang cviii], 1892. 
Kev. C. H. W. Johns, Derivation of Purim, in Expositor, August 
1896. Dieulafoy, Le Livre d Esther et le palais d' Assuerus, 
in Rev. des Etudes Juives, 1888. S. Oettli, in Die Gesch. 
Hagiograph., in Strack and Zockler's Comm., 1889. Prof. 
Scholz, on the names in Book of Esther, in Theol. Quartal- 
schrift, 1890. Prof. Zimmern, on the origin of Feast of Purim, 



APPENDIX. 241 

in Stade's Zeitschrift, 1891. See also Sayce's Higher Criticism 
and Verdict of Monuments, 1894. 

Chap. XIV. The Poetical Boohs. § 1. Job.— C. Siegfried. 
Critical Edit, of Heb. Text,'\w colours, with notes, 1893, in 
Haupt's Sacred Boohs. A. Dillmann, Hiob erhldrt, 4te Aufl., 
1891; also Textcritisches z. Buch Ijob, in SUzungsberichte 
Berlin Acad., 1890, criticism of Hatch's essay (see App., chap, 
vii.). K. Budde, Hiob iibersetzt u. erhldrt, 1896, in Nowack's 
Handhommentar, rev. by Cheyne in Expos., June and July, 
1897. Kev. Canon G. Rawlinson, in Pulp. Comm., 1892. 
Dr. R. A. Watson, in Expositor's Bible, 1894. G. Bickell, Das 
Buch Job nach Anleitung der Sti'ojfhih u. der LXX. avf 
seine ursjw. Form zuriichgefiihrt u. iibersetzt, 1894 ; also Be 
indole Vers. Alex. Job., 1893. G. Beer, Ber Text Hiob itnter- 
sucht, 1896, II. Theil, 1897 ; and in Z. A. T. W., 1896 and 1897. 
L. Lane, Bie Comp. des Buch Hiob, 1896. B. Duhm, Das 
Buch Hiob erhldrt [pp. xv, 212], 1897. Also the small but 
important work of Prof. J. G. E. Hoffmann, Hiob, Kiel, 1891. 
This treatise of over 106 pp. has an introd., trans]., and crit. 
notes. Hoffmann assigns Job to a post-exilian date. Cheyne 
has rev. the work in Critical Review, May 1891. J. Grill, Zur 
Kritih der Corny, des Buches Hiob, 1890. 

§ 2. The Psalms. — J. Wellhausen, The Booh of the Psalms, 
Crit. Edit, of Heb. Text, in colours, with notes, 1895, in Haupt's 
Sacred Boohs. F. Baethgen, Die Psalmen iibersetzt u. erhl., 
1892 ; neubearb. Aufl. , 1897. Dr. Maclaren, in Expositor's Bible 
(3 vols.), 1893-1895. A. F. Kirkpatrick, in Cambridge Bible, 
bk. i., 1891 ; bks. ii., iii., 1895. T. K. Cheyne, Hist., Origin, 
and Belig. Ideas of Psalter (Bampton Lect.), 1891 ; Aids to 
Bevout Study of Criticism : ii,, The Psalms, 1892. Canon Raw- 
linson (3 vols.), in Pulp. Comm. A. Neubauer, Titles of Psalms 
according to Early Jeivish Authorities, in Studia Bill., ii., 
Oxford, 1890. C. H. H. Wright, Prof. Cheyne 's Theory of Ps. ex., 
in Thinker, August 1892. Dr. J. Sharpe, Student's Handb. to 
Psalms [pp. xv, 440]. J. Storjohann, Die grosse Gebetserhorung 
Davids u. die davon handelnden Psalmen (tr. from Norwegian), 
1892, Engl. tr. 1897. W. T. Davison, The Praises of Israel, 

16 



242 APPEXDIX. 

Introd. to Study of Tsalms, 2nd edit., 1*97. A. Heiligstedt, 
Die Psalmen : Heb. Text mit hurzen Auslegung, zur Ende 
gefiihrt von Dr. M. Budie, 1888. B. Stade, Die Mess. Hoffnung 
in Psalter, z. f. Theol. u. Kirche, 1892. Dr. W. Staark, 
Zur Kritik der Psalmenuberschriften, in Stade's Zeitsehrift 
(Z. A. T. W.) for 1892. B. Jacob, Beitrage z. einer Eirdeitung 
in die Psalme?i, in Z. A. T W., 189C. 1897. T. K. Abbott, on 
Alphabetical Arrangement of P*s. <>., x., in Essays on the 
Original Texts of Old and Xeiv Tests., 1891. G. Beer, Individual 
v. Gemeindej)salmen, 1894. E. Sellin, De orig. carm. qua prim. 
Psalt. liber ami., 1892. E. G. King. Tlie Psalms (Pss. i.-xli.). 

§ 3. Proverbs— S. C. Malan published in 1892 his vol. ii., 
containing chaps, xi.-xx., and in 1893 vol. iii., chaps. xxi.-xxxi. 
G. Wildeboer, Die Spruehe erJclart [pp. xxiv, 95]. 
H. Pinkuss, Die Syr. Vebersetzung, in Stade s Zeitsehrift far 
A. T. W. t 1894, W. T. Davison, The Wisdom-Lit. of the 6. T. 
W. Graf Baudissin, L SprucMiclduag. 1-94. 

Dr. E.Pfeiffer, Die Beligibs-sittliche Weltanschauung des Buches 
der Spruehe [pp. viii, 21 R. F. Horton, in Expositor's 

Bible,im. W. Frankenberg. P\ \,>:r., in Z.A, T. W 

§ 4. Eecletiastes. — YT. J. Deane, in Pulp. Comm.. 1893. 
P. Menzel, Der Griechische I if Predig. u. Weisheit 

Sal, 1889, in pp. 1-3*, against E. Pfleiderer. Dr. C. Taylor, 
Dirge of Coheleth, in Jewish Quarterly, July and October 
D. Leimdorfer, Der Predig. Sal. in hist. BeleucMuw. 
S. Euringer, Der Masorahtext den Eoheleth hrit. nntersueht, 
P. Haupt, T he Book of Ecclesiastes [pp. 38], in Oriental 
Studies of Orient. Club of Philo B94, Dr. E. Klos- 

termann, De libri Coheleth vers. Alex, "p: 2. and 

A. Dillmann, Leber die griechische Uebersetzung des Qoheleth, 
both decisive against Graetz's theory that the present LXX. 
version was that of Aquila. R. M. Wenley. Aspects of 
PemmUm, 1894. Babbiner Dr. S. Schiffer, Das Bueh Eohelet 
naeh der Auffassung der Weisendes Talmud u.Midrasch u. der 
judischen Erhldrer des Mi ft el alters. Theil I. ton der Mischna 
bis vmm Abschluss der babyl. Talmud. Nebst hrit. Noten v. 
einer Abhandlung ueber dem Abschluss des alt-test. Kanon u. 



APPENDIX. 243 

die Abfassungszelt Koltelet. W. Volck, in Die poet. LTagiograph., 
in Strack and Zockler's Comm. Prof. 0. F. Myrberg, Predih- 
are bohen dfversatt och forklared, Stockholm, 1889. A. Lods, 
IS EceUsiaste et la Philosophic grecque, Paris, 1890. W. J. 
Deane, Eccles., 1893. 

§ 5. Song of Songs.— Br. W. Feilchenfeld, Das Hohelied 
inhaltlich u. sprachlich erlavtert, 1893. W. J. Deane, in 
Pulp. Comm. L. Bruston, La Sulammite : Melodrama en cinq 
actes et en vers. Trad, avec des notes explic, etc., 1892. 
W. F. Adeney, Song of Solomon and Lam. of Jeremiah, 1895, 
in Expositor's Bible. J. W. Rothstein, Das Holie Lied : Ein 
Vortrag nebst einer mit Anmerh. verseh. Uebersetzung, etc., 
1893. 

Chap. XV. § 1. The Propliets in general.— E. Havet, Etudes 
didst, relig. La Modernite des Prophetes, 1891 — wild and 
extreme. A. F. Kirkpatrick, Doctrines of the Prophets, 
Warburtonian Lect., 2nd edit., 1897. W. Robertson Smith, 
Prophets of Israel, new edit., with introd. and notes by 
T. K. Cheyne, 1895. Meignan (Card.), Les Prophetes d'Israel 
et le Mcssie depuis Salomori jusqu'a Daniel, Paris [pp. vii, 
607], 1893 ; Les Derniers Prophetes d'Israel, 1894. P. Volz, 
Die vorexilische Jahvepropheten u. der Messias [pp. viii, 93], 
1897 — very extreme. F. Giesebrecht, Die Bervfsbegabung 
der alt-testl. Propheten, 1897. D. H. Mliller, Die Propheten 
in Hirer unspriingl. Form, die Grundgesetze der ursemitische 
Poesie erschlossen v. nachgewiesen in Bibel, etc. (2 vols), 1896. 
C. G. Montefiore, Hibbert Lectures, 1892. W. Sanday, Bampton 
Lect. on Inspiration, 1893. C. H. Cornill, Der Isr. Prophet- 
ismus, 2te Aufl., 1896. A. Dillmann, Alt-test. Theol., 1895. 

§ 2. Isaiah. — T. K. Cheyne, Introd. to the Booh of Jsaiah, 
1895 ; Critical Edit, of Hebrew Text, in Haupt's Sacred Boohs ; 
articles in Jewish Quarterly, 1891-92. M. L. Kellner, Camb., 
U.S.A., Prophecies of Isaiah, 1895. S. R. Driver, Isaiah's 
Life and Times, 2nd edit., 1893. B. Duhm, Das Buch Zsaia 
ubersetzt u. erhldrt, 1892. Dr. J. Skinner, in Cambridge 
Bible, 1891-1895. Principal Geo. C. M. Douglas, Isaiah One 
and his Book One [pp. xvii, 417], 1895. C. H. H. Wright, art, 



244 APPENDIX. 

on Isaiah in Smith's Bible Diet., 1893. J. Kennedy, Popular 
Argument for Unity of Isaiah [pp. 146], 1891. J. hey, Hist. 
Erkldrung des 2 Tlieils des Jesaia xl.-xlvi. [pp. xii, 160], 1893. 
W. E. Barnes, Exam, of Obj. against genuineness of xxiv.- 
xxvii., 1891. Prof. H. G. Mitchell, Study of Isa. i.-xii., New 
York and Boston, 1897. W. H. Cobb, Exam, of Isa. xiii., 
from Bibl. Sacra, Oberlin, Ohio [pp. 28], 1892. Hackmann, 
Die Zukunfts Erwartung des Jesaia, 1893. A. B. Davidson, 
Earlier Ideas of Isaiah, in Expositor, April 1893. Geo. A. 
Smith, The Book of Isaiah, in Expositor's Bible, 2 vols., 
1889-90. J. Barth, Beitrdge zur Erkldrung des Jesaia, 
1885. F. Giesebrecht, Beitrdge zur Jesaiakritik : nebst einer 
Studio iiber prophetische Schriftstellerei, Gbttingen, 1890. 
B. Blake, B.D., Horn to read Isaiah, being the Prophecies of 
Isaiah arrangedin order, T. & T. Clark, 1891. E. Sinker, D.D., 
Hezekiah and his Age, 1897. T. K. Cheyne. Isaiah, in Poly- 
chrome Bible (see p. 248). 

§ 3. Jeremiah. — C. H. Cornill, Jeremiah, Crit. Edit, of 
Hebrew Text, arranged in chronological order, with notes 
1895, in Haupt's Sacred Books. F. Giesebrecht, Jeremiah 
iiber setzt u. erkldrt, 1894, in Nowack's Handkomm. C. J. Ball 
(vol. 1) and W. H. Bennett (vol. 2), in Expositor's Bible, 1890, 
1895. A. W. Streane, The Double Text of Jeremiah (Mass. 
and Alex.) compared [pp. 384], 1896. B. Blake, How to read 
the Prophets, Part Hi., Jeremiah, 1893. A. v. Bulmerincq, 
Das Zukunftsbild des Jer., 1894. B. Stade, in Z. A. T. W., 

1 892. L. H. K. Bleeker, Jer.'s Profetieen tegen de Volkeren, 
1894. 

§ 4. Lamentations. — Dr. M. Lohr, Die Klaglieder iibersetzt 
u. erkldrt, 1894, in Nowack's Handkomm. ; also in Z. A. T. W. 
1894. S. Oettli, in Strack and Zockler's Comm. W. F. Adeney, 
see under Song of Songs. K. Budde, articles Zum heb. Klagelied^ 
in Stade's Z. A. T. W., 1891, 1892. S. A. Fries, Parallele 
zwisch. Klagelieden IV, V, u. der Maccabderzeit, mZ. A. T. IP., 

1893. P. Mayniel, Le Livre des Lament., Montauban, 1894. 

§ 5. Ezekiel.—A. B. Davidson, in Camb. Bible, 1892. E. 
H. Plumptre, in Pulp. Comm. J. Skinner, in Expositor's 
Bible, 1895. D. H. Miiller, Ezekiel-Studien [pp. 62]— short, 



APPENDIX. 245 

but important. L. Gautier, La Mission du proph. Ezech., 

1891. E. Selle, Be Aramaismis libri Ezechieles, 1890. The 
article on Gog and Magog, in my Biblical Essays, 1886, is on 
the interpretation of Ezekiel, and is referred to by Driver. 
A. Bertholet, Bas Buck Hesekiel erkldrt, 1897. 

§ 6. Baniel. — A. Kamphausen, Baniel, Crib. Edit, of the 
Hebrew and Aram. Text, in colours, 1896, in Haupt's Sacred 
Books; also Bas Buck Baniel u. die neuere Geschichts- 
forschung [pp. 46], 1893. G. Behrmann, Bas Buck Baniel 
ubersetzt u. erkldrt, 1894. J. E. H. Thomson, Baniel, 1897, in 
Pulpit Comm.— important and conservative ; also articles in 
Thinker, 1893, 1895, and in Crit. Review, July 1895. L'Abbe 
J. Fabre D'Envieu, Le Livre de Baniel, trad, d'apres le texte 
hebreu, armenien et grec, avec une introd. critique (4 vols.), 

1892. C. Bruston, Etudes sur Baniel et T Apocalypse [pp. 39], 
1896. Kev. J. Urquhart, Lnspiration and Accuracy of Holy 
Script., second part occupied with defence of Daniel, 1896. 
P. Lagarde, in vol. iv. of Mittheilungen, writing on Havet's 
Modernite des Prophetes, assigns Dan. vii. to A.D. 69 ! The 
work of P. W. Farrar, on Baniel, in Expositor's Bible, 1895, 
belongs to the most advanced school. Bratke, Bas ncuent- 
deckten Buch des Baniel-Komm. von Hippolytus, 1890. 
J. W. Kennedy, Part of the Comm. of Hippolytus on Baniel, 
with introd., notes, and transl., Dublin, 1888. G. Salmon, 
Comment, of Hippolytus on Baniel, in Hermathena, xviii. 
Fulfilled Prophecy, a proof of the Truth of Revealed Reli- 
gion ; being the Warburtonian Lectures for 1854-1858 ; 
with an Appendix of Notes, including a fall investigation 
of Daniel's Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. By the Very 
llev. W. Goode, D.D., F.S.A.. Dean of Bipon. Second 
edition. Edited by the Eev. E. W. Bullinger, D.D., 1890. 
A. Bludau, Be Alex, interp. lib. Ban. indole crit. et herm., 
Pars I., Minister in W., 1891; also Bie Alexandr. Ueber- 
setzung des Baches Baniel u. ihr Verhdltniss z. Massor. 
Text, 1897. Knabenbauer, Comm. in Baniel proph. Lam. 
et Baruch [pp. 520], Paris, 1891. B. Neteler, Stellung des A. 
T. Zeitrechnung in der alt-orient. Gesch., Untersuchung 
der 70 Jahrwochen [pp. 19], 1893. K. Anderson, Baniel in 
the Critics' Ben, a reply to Farrar, 1895— smartly written, 



216 APPENDIX. 

but not satisfactory ; also The Coming Prince, or tlie Seventy 
Weeks of Daniel, with an answer to the Higher Criticism, 181)5 
— futuristic and fanciful. E. Kupprecht, Bcr Pseudo- Daniel 
und Pseudo- Jesaia der modernen Kritik vor dem Forum des 
christl. Glaubens; der Moral und der Wissenschaft, 1894. 
[pp. 86]. A. Freiherr von Gall, Die Einlicitliclikeit des Buches 
Daniel, 1895 [pp. 126]. J. Meinhold, in Strack and Zockler's 
Comm., under Die Geschichtl. Hagiograph., 1889. A. Slatter, 
on the Bene parisim bei Dan. xi. 14, in Z. A. T. W., 1894. 
M. Lohr, Texthrit. Vorarbeiten z. einer Erhldrung des B. 
Daniel, in Z. A. T. W., 1895, 1896. 

Chap. XVI. Minor Prophets. — On the Minor Prophets 
together, or in general : J. Wellhausen, Die hleinen Propheten 
ubersetzt mit Noten, 1892, in Shizze u. Verarbeiten, Fiinftes 
Heft. F. W. Farrar, The Minor Propliets, their Lives and 
Times, 1890. G. A. Smith, Booh of the Twelve Prophets, 2 vols., 
in Expositor's Bible, 1896, 1898. W. Nowack, Die hleinen 
Propheten ubersetzt u. erhldrt, 1897, in Nowack's Handhomm. 

§ 1. Hosea.—J. J. P. Valeton, Amos en Hosea, 1894. 

§ 2. Joel. — S. R. Driver, Joel and Amos, in Cavib. Bible, 
1897. G. B. Gray, art. in Expositor, 1893. 

§ 3. Amos.— S. R. Driver, as in § 2. H. G. Mitchell, Amos, 
Boston, U.S.A., 1893. L. B. Paton, Journal Bibl. Lit, U.S.A. 

§ 4. Obadiah. — K. Peters, Die Prophetie Obadjahs unter- 
sucht u. erhldrt, Paderborn, 1892. 

§ 5. Jonah. — L. Dahle, Propheten Jonas, hans Person og 
Samtid, Christiania [pp. ii, 147]. J. W. McGarvey, Jesus 
and Jonah: i. Review of a symposium on our Lord's 
remarks respecting Jonah ; ii. Review of Prof. Driver on 
the Book of Jonah ; iii. Is the story of Jonah incredible 1 
iv. The three days and the three nights — Cincinnati, 1896. 
J. Kennedy, D.D., On the Booh of Jonah, a Monograph', a 
contribution to the evidence of its historic truth, 1895. 
L. T. Townsend, The Story of Jonah in the Light of Higher 
Criticism, New York, 1897. J. D. T., Problem of Jonah, art. 
in Prim. Meth. Quarterly Review, April 1894, decides for the 
allegorical interpretation. R. W. Dale, art. in Expositor, 



APPENDIX. 247 

vol. vi., 1892, regards Jonah as an ' ; imaginative creation " and 
allegorises book. Rev. F. F. Walrond, art. on Sign of Jonah 
the Prophet, in Expositor, July 1897. 

§ 6. Micah.—T. K. Cheyne, in Camb. Bible, 2nd edit,, 
1895. John Taylor, D.Lit., The Massorctlc Text and the 
Ancient Versions of the Booh of Micah, 1891. H. J. Elhorst, 
Be Profetie van Mieha, Arnhem, 1891 — very advanced. 
Against his views J. W. Pont has written Mieha- Studien, in 
the Holland. Z. Theol. Stud,, 1888, 1889, 1892. W. H. Rosters, 
in Theologish Tijdschrift, 1893. 

§ 7. Nahum. — A. B. Davidson, Nahum, Habb., and Zeph., 
in Cambridge Bible, 1896. A. Billerbeck und A. Jeremias, 
Ber Untergang Nineveh's u. die Weissagungsxchrift des Naltitm, 
in Delitzsch and Haupt's Beitrage zur Assyriologie, 1897, 
pp. 87-188. H. Gunkel, Nahum I. untersucht, in Z. A. T. W 
for 1893. 

§ 8. Habakkuk (see in § 7).— K. Budde, Bie B'dcher Habb. 
u. Sephanja, in Studien u. Kritiken, 1893 ; Habahkuh, in Ex- 
positor, May 1895. J. W Eothstein, in Studien u. Kritiken, 
1894. 

§ 9. Zephaniah (see in §§ 7, 8). — J. Bachmann, Zur Text- 
hritih des Proph. Zeph., in Theol. Studien u, Kritiken, 1894. 
W. Schulz, Comm., 1892. Schwally, in Z. A. T. W., 1890— 
very advanced. 

§ 10. Haggai. — T. Andre, Le Prophete Aggce, introd. 
critique et commentaire, Paris, 1895, and Etat critique du 
texte d'Aggce, 1895 — very extreme, maintains that Haggai 
dreamed of no other Messiah than Zerubbabel. Beplied to 
by Prof, van Hoonacker of Louvain in Nouvelles Etudes 
sur la rest. Juive apres Vexil, Paris, 1896. 

§ 11. Zechariah. — K. Marti, Ber Prophet Sacharja der Zeit- 
genosse Serabbabels, 1892. N. J. Bubinkam, The Seeond Part 
of Zechariah, with Special Reference to the Time of its 
Origin [pp. viii, 84], Basel, 1892. S. Lasserre, Etude sur le 
livre Zakurie, Montauban, 1891. Prof. H. Graetz has written 
in the Jewish Quarterly Review for January 1891 on TlieLast 
Chapter of Zechariah, Whatever Graetz wrote deserves 
due attention, although we cannot adopt his views as to the 



248 APPENDIX. 

interpretation of the chapter. Prof. George Hoffmann of 
Kiel has, in his Hiob, some important remarks on Zechariah 
and its relation to that book, and has expressed himself 
decidedly in favour of the unity of Zechariah. A. K. Kniper, 
Zacli. ix.-xiv., eene exeg.-hrit. Studie, Utrecht, 1894. G. K. 
Griitzmacher, Versuchung iiber den TIrsprung der in Zach. 9-14 
vorlieg. Prophetien, 1892 — generally orthodox. R. Eckardt, 
Der Sprachgebrauch von Zach. 9-14, in Z. A. T. W., 1893; 
Der relig. Gehalt von Sack. 9-14, in Zeitsoli. *. Tlieol. u. 
Kirche, 1893. 

§ 12. Malachi.—J. J. Perowne, in Camb. Bible, 1890. 

The first three numbers of the Polychrome Bible, edited 
by Paul Haupt, have come into my hands since part of 
the preceding has gone to press. Those numbers comprise 
(1) The Book of Judges, a New English Translation, printed 
in colours, exhibiting the composite structure of the book, 
with explanatory notes and pictorial illustrations by Prof 
George F. Moore, D.D., of Andover. (2) The Booh of Psalms, 
a Nero English Translation, with explanatory notes, and an 
appendix on the music of the ancient Hebrews, by Prof. J. 
Wellhausen, D.D., of Gottingen, English translation of the 
Psalms by Horace Howard Furness. (3) The Booh of the 
Prophet Isaiah, a New English Translation, printed in colours, 
exhibiting the composite structure of the book, with explana- 
tory notes, and pictorial illustrations, by T. K. Cheyne, M.A., 
D.D. I am far from accepting Prof. Cheyne's statements as 
" ascertained results of modern criticism," and must protest 
against this sort of dissection of the prophecies, as well as 
with all tampering with the interpretation of predictions 
like that of Isaiah lii. 13-liii., as resting on no solid or 
scientific basis of reasoning, and also as being directly 
opposed to the interpretation set forth in the New Test. 

N.B. — I may be permitted at the close of this Bibliographical 
Appendix to call attention to the fact that a considerable num- 
ber of important articles on Old Test, subjects have appeared 
(and constantly appear) in such journals as the Expositor, 
the Critical Review, and the Expository Times in our country, 



APPENDIX. 249 

and in America in Hebraica, the Bibliotheca Sacra, and 
other journals. These articles are often not generally known, 
and even when known it is impossible to notice them, except 
in rare cases. To Germany, Holland, France, and other 
countries the same remarks apply. Our lists have been 
mainly occupied in giving the names oC the books and 
separate brochures, though exceptions had in many cases to 
be made. 



Printed by Hazell, Wutson, <L- Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury. 

17 



APR 28 1902 



7 



